Mike Huckabee

Just when you didn’t think Joe Biden’s blunders could get any worse, he has a week like this one. After a 2 year hiatus due to Covid, the White House Easter Egg roll was resumed and Biden officials probably wished they’d canceled this one too. While working the rope line, some pesky reporters actually asked him a real question beyond asking him about his favorite ice cream flavor. As he seemed to get lost in the question and start speaking off the cuff instead of off the script, a staffer dressed as the Easter Bunny jumped in and intervened, pulling the President away from reporters so he didn’t saying something honest and truthful.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/18/easter-bunny-stops-biden-from-answering-reporters-question/

Reports are that when Jen Psaki leaves the White House to go work for MSNBC, she will be replaced by a large cartoon figure because it’s less conspicuous for the President to be hustled away from journalists by a bigger than life Easter Bunny than by an almost human-like staffer.

Then there’s the famous “ghost handshake” Biden attempted to have after a speech in North Carolina. He finished his speech and appears to have followed a cue from his teleprompter that told him to shake hands when he finished…one little problem—his cue to shake hands was there, but there was no one there. A couple of days earlier he gave a speech about ghost guns; it appears that he thought that meant that actual ghosts were getting guns and he just wanted to pretend to shake the ghost’s hand.

https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/1514691339639791629

Most of the press didn’t even try to cover for this rather pathetic moment, but the so-called “fact checker” site called Politifact tried to explain it away by calling it just a hand gesture to point at someone. The utterly discredited Politifact got laughed at more than Biden for that Whopper of a cover-up.

And then this week, after a federal judge in Florida overruled the despised and hated mask mandate for trains, planes, and buses, the President seemed to take sides with the people when he said that people could decide for themselves whether to wear the phony Fauci-fashion face diaper.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1516480024819478530

But apparently he’s just the President…he’s not really calling the shots because hours after the President seemed to indicate that we were a free country again and that wearing a mask on a plane was be “up to the citizen,” his own Justice Department said it would appeal the ruling to Democrats can keep everyone’s faces covered up. Maybe Democrats know that if they force us all to keep wearing masks, no one will notice that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Frankly, there are some Democrats whose faces do look better all covered up, so maybe it’s not all bad. And yes, some people should wear a mask for medical reasons or maybe they just don’t want to brush their teeth. But shouldn’t that be our choice? Why do Democrats want to justify killing an unborn child based on the CHOICE of the mother, but want to eliminate the choice you might make not about your baby’s health, but about your own health?

And remember when President Biden said we need to punish those border patrol agents who were accused of using whips against illegal immigrants? After a thorough investigation, the agents were completely cleared of any wrong doing, but the White House refused to apologize or even admit they were wrong.

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1516152842150723588

I know you might think I’m a bit tough on President Biden, but not nearly as tough as I could be. I don’t bungle his decisions and his declarations. I just try to make sure you see why I think our country is in trouble with him in the driver’s seat and why I encourage you to get out and vote this November!

Mike Huckabee

Special Counsel John Durham has issued subpoenas for members of Hillary For America (her 2016 campaign) and the Democratic National Committee in the case against Michael Sussmann, who, as a Perkins Coie partner, represented them both.

But according to Jerry Dunleavy at the Washington Examiner, Hillary’s campaign, the DNC, Perkins Coie, and oppo research firm Fusion GPS are all fighting Durham’s efforts to compel the submission of documents –- UNREDACTED documents –- they continue to withhold.

They’re citing attorney-client privilege. As background, here’s what legal analyst Margot Cleveland wrote a few weeks ago about their refusal to turn over documents.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/07/will-the-court-allow-special-counsel-john-durham-to-see-clinton-campaign-documents/

As Durham has pointed out, the party asserting attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing that the communications in question are, in fact, privileged. “...Merely claiming they are is not enough.”

For privilege to protect a communication, he said, it must be something “that a client conveys to his attorney for the purpose of security for an opinion on law, legal services, or assistance in a legal proceeding.” It can also cover third parties, such as legal assistants, as long as the communication is “for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the lawyer.” But that's it.

Durham can't see the unredacted documents unless the judge has so ruled, so he has asked that they be submitted to the court for an “in camera” review. Cleveland included all the lawyerly details, but her thoughts a few weeks ago can be summarized this way: Presiding Judge Christopher Cooper would likely call for this and provide the Clinton campaign and the DNC an opportunity to argue why the communications are privileged, but that the argument would be very tough.

Even though the burden of proof is on Hillary For America and the DNC, Durham has filed an impressive argument for why these communications are not privileged. But Sussmann’s attorneys fought back Friday in another filing, saying, “The Special Counsel took the astonishing and legally inappropriate step of subpoenaing witnesses for the express purpose of having them testify to the invocation of the attorney-client privilege in front of the jury.” (I’m not a lawyer, but Isn’t that just what Cleveland said they’re supposed to do, seeing as how the burden of proof is on them?)

They’re also saying Durham “overreached” in trying to prove “prejudicial allegations he has not charged.” But Durham volleyed back, saying that the “joint venture” he’s investigating “was far from collateral for the charged crime,” meaning they were both part of the same scheme.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/durham-issues-trial-subpoenas-to-clinton-campaign-and-dnc

But now, here’s the best verbal “capture” of this moment in the Durham investigation, which Andrew C. McCarthy calls, “the moment of attorney-client privilege.” McCarthy has outdone himself in his comments on this desperate attempt by the Clinton campaign and DNC to keep their communications secret, and they are a joy to read. “...With yet another special counsel hovering,” he writes, “and apparently close to concluding that the Hillary Clinton campaign pulled off one of the great political dirty tricks of all time, it’s like we’re right back in the Nineties, wondering what the definition of ‘is’ is.”

This is an absolute must-read:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/durhams-investigation-is-finally-getting-interesting/

As he explains, the last laugh might be on the Clinton people, because when they argue for attorney-client privilege because Sussmann was their attorney, they’re reinforcing the very charge that Durham has made against him; namely, that he lied to the FBI when he said he was NOT acting as their attorney. This is really getting good.

John Solomon also has an update, and he, too, says their effort is likely to backfire. That’s because “the very subjects the Clinton campaign now seeks to protect –- such as its now-discredited anti-Trump research –- were widely distributed without regard to privilege for years.”

Once a privileged attorney-client communication is spread to third parties, privilege is history.

Alan Dershowitz actually supported Hillary for President in 2016 but dismisses her claims of privilege now. Kash Patel anticipates that Durham will use the crime-fraud exception, saying that “this is an attempt to block information in an ongoing fraud. You cannot use the attorney-client privilege.” Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, calls the attempt “laughable,” considering the many times false Russia collusion claims were shared with third parties. He thinks it might be a delaying tactic.

“I think they’re going to lose on that,” Biggs said. “And, you know, it’s starting to unravel for them pretty quickly. And they just don’t want the truth to come out.”

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/clinton-campaigns-11th-hour-attorney-privilege-ploy

UPDATE: We just came across a new report from The Epoch Times about the Durham investigation and Sussmann trial. It’s a “premium” story, by subscription only, but I’ll quote in full one unbelievable paragraph. Durham would surely know better than anyone about this, but it’s hard to fathom how the judge in the Sussmann case, Christopher Cooper, can possibly be without serious conflicts of interest.

Here it is; no further elaboration needed:

“The judge in the Sussmann case, Christopher Reid Cooper, used to be a colleague of Sussmann’s at the DOJ. His wife, Amy Jeffress, is a lawyer for Lisa Page, formerly a high-level FBI attorney who’s now suing the DOJ. Page was deeply embedded in the Russia investigation. She was also a mistress of Peter Strzok, former head of FBI counterintelligence operations and a point man in the Russia probe. Cooper and Jeffress also have close ties to the Democratic Party. Cooper served on the 2008 transition team of President Barack Obama, Jeffress spent 20 years at the DOJ and was a national security counselor for Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, and their wedding was officiated by Merrick Garland, the current Attorney General.”

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee

Well, here’s some news you hardly ever see these days! A US city announced that in just one year, murders have dropped by 30% and shootings by 17%. How did they do it? Bail reform? Replacing cops with social workers? Federal grants?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-prosecutor-crackdown-repeat-offenders-drop-violent-crime

No, the city was Jacksonville, Florida, where the Republican prosecutor targeted violent repeat offenders and pushed for stiff penalties instead of letting them back out on the streets to do it again.

Hey, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, New York, et al: maybe you should give enforcing the law a try. It’s crazy, but it just might work!

Related: At this writing, we’re still waiting for comment from the Black Lives Matter organization on a new FBI report showing a disproportionate 32% increase in murders of black Americans from 2019 to 2020, and various experts saying this was not due to the coronavirus but to BLM-endorsed policies such as defunding the police.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/blm-silent-when-confronted-with-data-showing-massive-2020-spike-in-black-murders-victims/ar-AAWnegb

And if you’re scratching your heads over how a virus that forced everyone to stay home and watch TV could have sparked skyrocketing crime and murder rates, you’re not alone. But some people are still pushing that idea. In her latest column, Ann Coulter takes a look back to remind us of what happened, how some people did indeed try to blame it on the pandemic, and how they were unable to provide any more evidence of that than if they’d blamed all the crime and murders on UFOs.

https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/04/20/the-pandemic-made-me-do-it-n2606140

Mike Huckabee

An iconic athlete has spoken up against allowing “trans” athletes with male bodies to compete in women’s sports. See if you can guess who said this:

Current rules allowing “male-bodied people presenting as women, who live as women, with varying degrees of medical intervention and in some degrees, no medical intervention” to compete against women have “crossed the line,” and “it’s a slap in the face to women.”

She said denying the impact of testosterone on athletic performance “is obviously utter rubbish…Anyone with any basic understanding (of) biology and the difference between men and women knows it’s ridiculous. It’s male puberty that really grants boys and men that physical performance in sport. And I think it’s irrefutable — it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.”

You probably didn’t guess that that was the opinion of Danish golfer Mianne Bagger, who made history in 2004 as the first transgender athlete in a pro golf tournament at the Women’s Australian Open.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/20/transgender-golfer-mianne-bagger-rips-male-bodied-competitors-in-female-sports/

Bagger acknowledged she’ll be attacked as a hypocrite because restrictions on trans athletes might have prevented her from playing, but she says she’ll just take the abuse and criticism. She said she would be open to trans athletes competing under tougher rules, but not the “current, softened policies that are requiring less and less medical intervention of a male-bodied person entering women’s sport.”

So it’s official: we’ve now reached the point where the push to allow transgender athletes in women’s sports has gone so far beyond ridiculous that it’s actually offending transgender athletes.

Mike Huckabee

The powers that be can see the opposition growing to Big Tech’s control of free speech, with Elon Musk putting his money where his mouth is to help put an end to it, and they’re suddenly speaking out to maintain that control. Free speech is an existential threat to the left, and they know it, so they’re pushing back. It’s as if someone, somewhere, had flipped a switch.

Former President Obama, speaking Thursday for the Obama Foundation at Stanford University Cyber Policy Center, said, “The biggest reason for democracy’s weakening is the profound change that’s taken place in how we communicate and consume information...Our new ‘information ecosystem’ is turbocharging some of humanity’s worst impulses...Lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery...[dramatic pause]...white supremacists, racist tracts, misogynous screeds –- people are dying because of misinformation.”

Which “misinformation” is he talking about? I don’t suppose he means the vast amount of fake news that has been brought to us over the past half-dozen years or so, courtesy of the left. The few real journalists out there have been busy exposing their fake stories all this time and the work has not let up. I hardly even know where to start in re-enumerating all the pieces of misinformation that have come, uncensored, from the left.

No, he means the stories that get in the way of what the left wants to do. By and large, he’s talking about REAL stories, the ones that leftist-funded “fact”-checkers, or partisan letter writers, wrongly flag and censor as mis- or dis-information.

On Monday, a group of former intelligence and national security officials issued a joint letter warning that pending legislative attempts to restrict or break up the Big Tech monopoly –- Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon –- would jeopardize national security. Especially with Moscow posing such a threat, they say, this centralized power is crucial to advancing U.S. foreign policy.

When my research team and I first saw this story, the first thought we had was, “Hey, what do you bet the names on this letter are pretty much the same as those names on the letter saying Hunter Biden’s laptop looked like Russian disinformation?” And, guess what? It turned out we were right!

The great Glenn Greenwald did some checking and found that out. He writes:

“While one of their central claims is that Big Tech monopoly power is necessary to combat (i.e., censor) “foreign disinformation,” several of these officials are themselves leading disinformation agents: many were the same former intelligence officials who signed and now-infamous-and-debunked pre-election letter fraudulently claiming that the authentic Hunter Biden emails had the “hallmarks” of Russian disinformation (former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Obama CIA Director Michael Morell, former Obama CIA/Pentagon chief Leon Panetta). Others who signed this new letter have strong financial ties to the Big Tech corporations whose power they are defending in the name of national security (Morrell, Panetta, former Bush National Security Adviser Fran Townsend.)”

Greenwald’s piece is on Substack and highly recommended reading. Here’s the link --- it’s by subscription, but his key points are addressed below.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/former-intelligence-officials-citing?s=r

There are two separate bills right now in the House and Senate, and both have received bipartisan support. This seems to have shocked Big Tech, who apparently assumed they were in the catbird seat with their very powerful lobby, and Greenwald suggests this letter is an act of desperation. He explains that there are certain politicians, especially those from Silicon Valley such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who might work behind the scenes to kill the bill but, when voting times comes, will not be able to take a public stand against it and will have to vote yes. So Big Tech is trying to keep both these bills from reaching the floor.

According to Greenwald, they’ve got pressure on New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, because both his daughters hold jobs with Big Tech. As the New York Post has reported, Jessica lobbies for Amazon (cozy) and Alison is a product marketing manager at Facebook. According to reports, Schumer has engaged in maneuvers to keep the bills from getting a full floor vote, but he told The Intercept that he supports both bills and will vote in favor.

As Greenwald explains it, this difficulty in killing the bills is why pro-censorship former operatives of the CIA, Homeland Security and Pentagon are getting involved. They hold little sway with the Senate Judiciary and House Antitrust Committees, but they “command great loyalty” from the national security committees. Because of the threat they say is posed by Russia, they demand in this letter that both bills first be reviewed by congressional committees with national security jurisdiction: the Armed Services Committees, Intelligence Committees, and Homeland Security Committees in both House and Senate.

Here’s the letter in full:

https://punchbowl.news/wp-content/uploads/Open-Letter-Cyber-Intel-Defense-HS-1.pdf

Greenwald also cites a September article by Emilly Birnbaum at Politico headlined, “12 former security officials who warned against antitrust crackdown have tech ties,” and quotes extensively. These are the 12 former officials who signed another letter –- similar, but relating to competitiveness with China –- last fall. Here’s that article:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/22/former-security-officials-antitrust-tech-ties-513657

Right there at the top is a picture of Leon Panetta, who is, as the caption says, one of those former officials who “are advisory board members or senior counselors with a public relations firm that represents Google.” That firm is Beacon Global Strategies. We checked, and he and Mike Morell are both still listed on their website, their pictures side by side.

https://bgsdc.com/team/

Apparently, though, quite a few in the intel/defense world don't agree that we must control information to maintain national security. Retired Gen. Wesley Clarke and numerous others have called that a “myth” at seminars like these.

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/conference-myth-busting-antimonopoly-enforcement?format=amp

As for the ones who are pushing for an unencumbered Big Tech, Greenwald puts it well: “...These former intelligence officials are exploiting their national security credentials to protect an industry in which they have a deep financial interest.”

At the same time, it helps those with a deep, abiding political interest. Ever since the Russia Hoax of 2016, political operatives have been exploiting fears of Russia to, in Greenwald’s words, “manipulate Americans to support the preservation of Big Tech’s concentrated power, and to imply that anyone seeking to limit Big Tech power or make the market more competitive is a risk to U.S. national security.”

This latest letter –- signed, remember, by some enthusiastic Russia Hoaxers –- says, “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks the start of a new chapter in global history, one in which the ideals of democracy will be put to the test.” Translation: we're in a different world now, and to ‘save democracy’ we'll have to change our idea of what free speech is.

Greenwald sees through their strategy and says, “The cynical exploitation could hardly be more overt: if you hate Putin the way any loyal and patriotic American should, then you must devote yourself to full preservation of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon.”

We know what Putin is. But we also know what George Soros is, and one big reason we want Big Tech reined in is that we’re sick of seeing stories like this one:

https://thelibertydaily.com/soros-backed-media-matters-executive-director-takes-credit-for-media-matters-getting-project-veritas-banned-from-twitter/

Mike Huckabee

This might be the calm before the storm for the Hunter Biden laptop story. Discussion seems to be moving from the contents –- we’ve got the idea and need to take repeated showers with antibacterial soap –- to the significance of those contents. On Wednesday, The Hill reported that Biden has told Obama he intends to run again in 2024. But on the same day, Townhall ran a piece by Oliver North and David Goetsch entitled “Biden’s Family Scandal: Never Underestimate the Power of Blackmail.”

https://townhall.com/columnists/olivernorthanddavidgoetsch/2022/04/19/bidens-family-scandal-never-underestimate-the-power-of-blackmail-n2606021

Not long ago, we went to Andrew C. McCarthy’s book BALL OF COLLUSION to look at the corruption in Ukraine, the so-called influence peddling in which so many on both sides of the aisle engage. The context was Paul Manafort and how he ever became Trump’s campaign chairman, but this is the same environment where the “Biden family business” thrived. And just as Manafort became politically vulnerable because of his activities and connections, so did the Bidens. That can especially be said of the patriarch, Joe Biden, who had by far the most to lose. The chorus is growing that this scandal isn’t about Hunter, but about the President.

That’s precisely the point made in the Townhall piece. “All Hunter ever peddled to China, Russia and Ukraine was access to his father,” it says. “Hunter not only compromised his father but set him up for blackmail.”

Amazingly, the two enemies President Biden is having to face down in 2022, Russia and China, happen to be the very nations in which he is eminently blackmail-able.

Ah, but you might say that neither Russia nor China has released anything on him. That must mean there's nothing else.

Au contraire. Blackmail is like revenge –- best served cold. Meanwhile, the blackmailer holds on to whatever he has so he can hold the threat of using it over his victim. In the meantime, he WANTS his stooge to remain where he is. The victim knows that if his blackmailers are displeased, they’ll “release the Kraken.”

And since what we already know is so bad –- assuming that Joe was “the Big Guy” and the plan was to give him a 10 percent cut of the action –- one might imagine that “the Kraken” is exponentially worse. (Or, as Biden might say, “expodentially.”)

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/12/16/lol-supercut-of-biden-saying-expodentially-over-and-over-n1541988

The Chinese, especially, are masters of blackmail. Joe Biden might swear up and down that he never profited from his family’s business dealings, but the authors of this piece pose a provocative question: “How did a lifelong politician who often claimed to be ‘the poorest man in the United States Senate’ suddenly become a multimillionaire on the Vice President’s salary, which in 2017 was $230,700?”

(Aside: That question is right up there with, “How did a couple of grifters from Arkansas go from being ‘dead broke’ to flying high in the wealth stratosphere, seemingly protected from any legal consequences of their actions?” I digress.)

Also recall the email that refers to Joe wanting to talk to Hunter “about his [Joe’s] future earnings potential.” We’ll ask again: Why would he be asking his son about that?

As FBI Director Chris Wray said in 2020, “China uses a diverse range of sophisticated techniques, everything from cyber intrusions to corrupting trusted insiders” to get what it wants. He went on to say that blackmail is one of their favorite tactics.

That’s one reason why it was so shocking to learn that California Rep. Eric Swalwell had had a close relationship with a Chinese agent, “Fang Fang,” that started even when he in his first political job, on a city council. Playing the long game, she helped groom him for higher office. Finally, she realized her cover was blown and high-tailed it back to China.

Congress didn’t take that revelation seriously enough –- might some of them be compromised, too? Swalwell takes a lower profile for now, but he’s still around and, amazingly, still has his seat on the HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, where he once investigated President Trump over bogus ties to Russia.

Moving on...As reported by Jason Chaffetz on FOX News Sunday, a group of 16 GOP legislators is calling on the “Justice” Department to brief Congress on the federal investigation into the President’s son, telling Attorney General Merrick Garland in a letter, “It is imperative that the Department of Justice brief Congress on the nature of Mr. Weiss’s investigation into Hunter Biden. Congress has a constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch an a moral obligation to examine if the President of the United States or any senior official in his administration is ethically compromised or injured.”

Chaffetz asked his guest, Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, what U.S. District Attorney David Weiss, head of the Delaware investigation into Hunter’s taxes that was made public in December 2020 (note: AFTER the election), might use as an excuse not to brief Congress. “The only excuse they might have,” Biggs said, “is that they don’t want to give us the information.” Yes, it’s typical for them to say they don’t comment on ongoing investigations. But, as Biggs said, 51 former intel officials signed a now-infamous letter saying the laptop had “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation. They didn’t seem to mind talking about THAT, even when what they were saying wasn’t true.

“That was to suppress this for the election in 2020,” Biggs said. “...If they’re not going to give us information, it does continue to look like the cover-up that we suspect it to be.” He’s concerned that not only might Joe Biden and his family be compromised, but “quite frankly, certain folks and assets within DOJ” might be as well.

What Congress needs, Chaffetz said, is “information about the flow of money.” Biggs, a member of the House Oversight Committee, said they’ll keep pushing. Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, is also committed to doing so.

California Rep. Darrell Issa, who also appeared on the show, took a take-charge stance and announced that Republicans in Congress are not waiting for the “Justice” Department to appoint a special counsel. They have a copy of the laptop’s hard drive and will just start their own investigation, thank-you-very-much. They don’t have subpoena power, though, unless (until!) they retake Congress.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/we-have-the-laptop-republican-investigator-hunter-biden-treasure-trove/ar-AAWj899

Mr. Weiss is a Trump appointee. Ironically, Biden couldn’t request his resignation, as is customary in a new administration, because Weiss already headed the ongoing investigation. (This isn’t Ukraine, after all.)

In late February, law professor Jonathan Turley commented on Weiss and the investigation going on in Delaware. Weiss apparently has called numerous witnesses to testify about Hunter’s lavish lifestyle. Turley’s biggest question is the scope of the investigation, saying the uncertainty surrounding that is the reason increasingly being cited for the need to appoint a special counsel, which Merrick Garland still refuses to do, “despite the clear basis for such an appointment.” Turley’s piece is a must-read…

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/23/word-to-the-weiss-why-the-delaware-u-s-attorney-still-calling-people-before-the-grand-jury-to-testify-on-hunter-biden/

Oh, and wouldn't want to forget this:

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/poll-trafalgar-biden-china/2022/04/19/id/1066292/

Mike Huckabee

A discussion of special counsel John Durham’s latest court filings wouldn’t be complete without the perspectives of analysts Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent at The Federalist, and Jonathan Turley, professor at George Washington University Law School, and we have them both today.

First, in case you didn’t see it yesterday, here’s the link to Part 1. One huge take-away from that is that the CIA, after being approached by Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann with the fake Trump-Russia story --- including the weird tale about unusual Russian-made cell phones “following” Trump --- said it was “not technically plausible” and (the big one) “user-created.” Sussmann’s attorneys, of the Democrat-connected firm Latham and Watkins, are fighting like mad to keep this and all the CIA evidence out.

https://www.mikehuckabee.com/latest-news?id=0D445189-B1B6-4EDC-A94B-250A4AD167CC

Turley was interviewed by Laura Ingraham on Monday night, and she asked a great question: Why might Durham have thought it was necessary to get all this information into the public domain via his detailed court filings? He said this is because Sussmann and his attorneys are taking a “real scorched-earth approach” to the trial, trying to keep evidence out, trying to keep witnesses from receiving immunity for their testimony. “That has forced the hand of this special counsel,” he said. Durham has had to tell the court why this evidence is so important.

Turley didn’t say this, but I wonder if by fighting so hard to keep this evidence out of court, Sussmann's team is calling even more attention to it than there might otherwise have been. Not that most mainstream media will cover it at all –- as with every other Democrat scandal, they’re getting whiplash from looking the other way –- but it’s slowly making its way into public consciousness --- at least among those members of the public who are conscious.

Turley pointed out that the law firm Perkins Coie, representing Hillary For America and the DNC, had “two of the critical figures,” Sussmann (under indictment) and the general counsel for the campaign, Marc Elias. Sussmann was working on the phony Alfa Bank story, and Elias was working on the phony Steele “dossier.” Recall that the FEC has recently fined the Clinton campaign for illegally hiding the true use of its funds by laundering the cash through Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS for the “dossier.” Just as Elias hid the purpose of that money billed to “legal services,” so Sussman hid the fact that he was acting on behalf of clients.

The significance: both of these were Russian collusion hoaxes, coordinated through Perkins Coie. It seems they were on parallel tracks, timed to coincide. That’s why Durham is lumping them together and including evidence of both in his case; he’s saying one set of facts helps prove the other.

On his own website, Turley’s headline emphasizes something we reported yesterday, that “five witnesses connected to the Clinton campaign’s false Russian claims have refused to cooperate.” These are members of that George Tech cyber team who either took the Fifth, so as not to incriminate themselves, or signified to Durham their intent to do so. The one who hadn’t was “Researcher – 2," not identified in the filing but known to be David Dagon, and he has had immunity since last July 28, over a month before Sussmann’s indictment.

Because those five researchers took the Fifth, Durham “pursued Researcher – 2’s immunity in order to uncover otherwise unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech Executive – 1 [Rodney Joffe] and others carried out in advance of the Defendant’s meeting with the FBI.”

“Researcher – 2” allegedly has information on meetings with both Elias and Steele.

Durham has numerous email exchanges that show doubts within the cyber team that they could fool people with their “evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion. “According to Durham, the Alfa Bank story fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI,” Turley says. “...Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed ‘university researchers’ who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.”

Researchers were told not to look for proof but just enough to “give the base of a very useful narrative.” You’ve seen the quote from “Researcher – 1”: “Let’s assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case scenario.’ You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to make even a very weak association.”

I like to contrast the previous two paragraphs with the way Sussmann characterized these same researchers in bringing his user-created “evidence” to the CIA. Why, they were so brave, coming forward with information they thought was so important to the U.S. government that they did so at great personal risk, under threat from Russian intelligence! That’s why, of course, they insisted on remaining anonymous!

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/17/durham-five-witnesses-connected-to-the-clinton-campaigns-false-russian-claims-have-refused-to-cooperate-under-the-fifth-amendment/comment-page-1/

Margot Cleveland has weighed in on the Friday filings as well, and she always comes up with new angles. She points out that Durham is having to address about a dozen “tedious issues” regarding what evidence he may use at trial, as the defense is trying to get whatever it can excluded.

Recall that when the story broke about Sussmann TEXTING to FBI general counsel James Baker that he was not acting on behalf of any client, we wondered, “Why is this just now coming out?” The defense had been saying it was just hearsay, a “he said—he said,” and that there was no proof of this lie. Then, suddenly, there was the stunning proof that no one had seemed to know about. Where'd it come from?

Sussmann’s attorneys are claiming the text was stored on the cloud and that Baker had suddenly realized he never retrieved those messages. It had been thought that perhaps the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General had withheld them, but apparently no. The court will have to decide whether this was an attempt to obstruct evidence.

Also, read Cleveland’s piece to see how obvious it is now that these people were SPYING ON Trump. By claiming those “Russian-made” cellphones appeared to be “following” Trump, they had to have Trump’s physical position. Were they using GPS to track him? This is something new. I thought we couldn’t be shocked anymore, but it they did this, consider me shocked a little.

Finally, as we told you yesterday, it’s David Dagon, “Tech Researcher – 2,” who was given immunity last July. (Reportedly, an unidentified Fusion GPS employee will also have immunity as a witness.) Cleveland is intrigued, because Dagon, one of the Georgia Tech crew, worked on both the Alfa Bank hoax and the Russian cell phone hoax. This and other details suggest that Dagon “holds a wealth of knowledge” related to both hoaxes. He should know the roles various people played, and he’ll be able to relate what information he and his team told Sussmann about the weakness of their “evidence.” That might make it harder for Sussmann to profess ignorance in that regard.

No wonder the defense team wants to keep it all out. Latham and Watkins and its elite Democrat clients have a lot more at stake than just fighting this one charge of lying.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/18/3-blockbuster-revelations-from-the-latest-special-counsel-court-filings/

Mike Huckabee

Monday, a federal judge in Florida struck down the national mask mandate on airplanes and other mass transit, finding that while the CDC’s intentions might have been laudable, it overstepped its powers, failed to justify its decision, and did not follow proper rule-making procedures.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-business-travel-tampa-3408cc825582126fbda5fbedd3a49dd3

While the Biden White House urged people to keep wearing masks anyway (I get the impression Joe wears one in the shower), Uber, Amtrak, multiple airlines and airports immediately began rescinding their mask requirements and telling passengers that they could free their faces.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/covid-mask-mandate-uber-amtrak-airlines-requirements

And to quote Monty Python, “There was much rejoicing.”

https://www.toddstarnes.com/politics/liberation-day-passengers-cheer-flight-attendants-weep-for-joy/

Of course, not everyone is happy to once again breathe the safe, heavily-filtered air of freedom. Some people are screaming at the sky and demanding the ruling be appealed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pissed-liberals-revolt-after-trump-appointed-judge-lifts-mask-mandate

They’ve become so deeply invested in COVID dogma that telling them they don’t have to wear a mask is like telling a devout Muslim to take off her burqa. The Japanese have even coined a term for this condition: “mask dependency.” They claim they’re on the side of science. But are they really?

https://redstate.com/jimthompson/2022/04/19/mask-mandate-is-history-what-will-the-flight-attendant-masknazis-do-n552273

I’ve never understood why these people demand that everybody else wear a mask. If they truly believe that masks block the virus, then isn’t the one they’re wearing protection enough? They claim they want to prevent the spread of the disease to others, but from the way they’re constantly screaming at, insulting and threatening those who disagree with them, and wishing mass death on them, I find it hard to believe they’re all that altruistic.

Here’s the bottom line on masks: as uncomfortable and inconvenient as they are, I wouldn’t mind wearing one if I thought it was actually doing any good. We followed the suggested protocols at the time and asked our TV studio audience to wear them, which I swear is the only reason you couldn’t hear them laughing uproariously at my jokes.

But we now have plenty of data showing that mask mandates have had terrible adverse effects on children while making virtually no difference in the spread of COVID. The cloth masks most people wear don’t block the transmission of an extremely microscopic airborne virus. Not to mention that most people, especially children, don’t follow the strict rules for handling masks, which ends up making them less sanitary than going maskless.

If you have any friends who are melting down at the thought of taking off their masks, you might want to share this article by John Tierney at City Journal.

https://www.city-journal.org/the-failed-covid-policy-of-mask-mandates

It contains a lot of data, including a chart comparing the COVID spread rates in states with and without mask mandates. They’re virtually identical. So were the cumulative death rates over the course of the pandemic, except that the death rate was slightly lower in states without mask mandates.

To cite specific states, the media praised Rhode Island in the summer of 2020 for reaching a 96% mask compliance rate. It quickly went on to experience one of the worst COVID surges in America. The media savaged Florida and Iowa as “reckless and delusional” and accused them of not caring if people die for refusing or ending mask mandates. Their COVID death rates turned out to be lower than the national average.

Tierney also cites a book by data analyst Ian Miller called “Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates,” which “documents how mask mandates were implemented without scientific justification, how they failed around the world, and how public officials and journalists have kept making fools of themselves by pretending otherwise.” Might be good to have a copy of that to loan to your friends. But be sure to sanitize it for their protection.

Mike Huckabee

Whether Elon Musk ultimately buys Twitter or not, he’s done the world an invaluable service by forcing leftists to admit (A.) that Twitter (and other social media outlets) are incredibly biased and censorious, and (B.) that there is nothing that terrifies them more than the thought of the people having freedom of speech.

I’ve always operated on the assumption that if you are so afraid of defending your ideas that you feel you have to silence anyone who would challenge them, then you must not be able to back them up intellectually. I’m confident enough in my beliefs that I happily invite liberals to come on my shows for a friendly debate, although I notice that hardly any of them take me up on it.

These days, leftists seem to believe, despite massive evidence to the contrary, that their opinions are objective truth. If that were true, they wouldn’t be so terrified of letting the other side talk, but instead, they’re desperate to maintain a highly censored public square with themselves, naturally, in charge of determining whose ideas are worthy of voicing.

When you have so-called “thought leaders” like Robert Reich and Max Boot actually arguing that Musk’s free speech agenda is the dream of every dictator on earth (Really? Name one) or that “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less,” you know are engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Instapundit had a good wrap-up on what an important day last Thursday was, a turning point in the left revealing its true attitude about freedom of speech.

https://instapundit.com/515630/

As Glenn Greenwald put it, “It was the day they were forced to explicitly state what has long been clear: they not only favor censorship but desperately crave and depend on it.”

And speaking of victories for free speech: Congratulations to philosophy professor Nicholas Meriwether, who was punished by Shawnee State University for refusing to call a male student by his “preferred” female pronouns because it violated his religious beliefs. Meriwether said he treats all students with dignity and respect, and he offered to call the student by name, but that wasn’t good enough. He sued, with his attorney saying that nobody should be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep their job.

Last month, the 6th US Court of Appeals found in his favor, ruling that the university violated his First Amendment rights. As part of a settlement, the university agreed to rescind the written warning issued to him, and pay his attorney’s fees and $400,000 in damages.

https://adfmedia.org/case/meriwether-v-trustees-shawnee-state-university

Congratulations to Prof. Meriwether and a big salute for fighting to defend both First Amendment free speech rights and correct grammar.

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee

Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann is scheduled to go to trial on May 16.

SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES host Jason Chaffetz brought this up with Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs of the House Judiciary Committee for a brief discussion of Durham’s case. “I’m not sure that the Clinton campaign folks or the Democrat Party wants to see this go trial, and air their dirty laundry even further,” Biggs said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/durham-stripping-bare-incestuous-relationship-in-clinton-campaign-lawyer-case-chaffetz

That’s surely one reason why Sussmann’s attorneys, of the DNC-connected law firm Latham and Watkins, have been trying so hard to get evidence excluded from the trial as “immaterial” to the case. It makes their clients and friends look very, very bad.

Chaffetz ran out of time before they could discuss what the screen graphic said: “Durham: CIA concluded data from Clinton lawyer alleging Trump-Russia connection was “not technically possible.” So we’ll get to that today.

First, in case you missed our Sussmann update over the weekend, featuring the judge’s latest ruling on materiality (in favor of Durham), here’s a link to that:

https://www.mikehuckabee.com/latest-news?id=C53E24F8-12B8-40CD-8B56-00F5B14B56CF

The Epoch Times has an update on Durham’s latest filing. It’s a “premium” article, so here's the link but also a summary and comments below.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/former-clinton-campaign-lawyer-made-false-statements-to-second-government-agency-durham_

Durham had already included in his filings that Sussmann, on September 19, 2016, met with FBI general counsel James Baker and lied to him about why he was there. He was actually representing clients Hillary for America –- Durham has the billing records –- and tech executive Rodney Joffe but said he was not representing clients, instead coming forward on his own, out of his sense of duty. (Good grief; that outrageous whopper is getting harder and harder to stomach every day.) The FBI later determined his Alfa Bank story was not supported by the facts. But in a new filing on Friday, Durham says that several months later, on February 9, 2017 –- after Trump was President, I would note –- Sussmann brought another fake Trump-Russia story to the CIA and lied again.

Here's the document, a CIA memorandum from that meeting, that Durham wants admitted into evidence at trial.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21615492-cia-memorandum

From the memo, we learn that Sussmann had already “reached out” to the CIA general counsel, in mid-December, but had had no response though she’d said she’d be in touch “after some coordination with the FBI.” Not to be dissuaded –- he was a man on a mission –- he had reached out again.

“Mr. Sussmann advised that he was not representing a particular client and the information he was volunteering to us was not privileged,” the memo states. “His contacts wished to provide information to the USG [U.S. government] through Mr. Sussmann, preferring anonymity citing a potential threat from the Russian Intelligence Services.”

[Editorial aside: !!!!!!!]

“Mr. Sussmann said that he believed his contacts were acting in good faith and out of a sense of loyalty to the USG...He was up-front in disclosing that his law firm was active in supporting several democratic causes and office holders including both the DNC and then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, but that such work was unrelated to his reasons for contacting the CIA. He merely wanted to pass along information that he thought would be of interest to the USG and then let the CIA and FBI validate the information and take whatever actions they believed were necessary.”

Read on in the filing about how he presents the story itself, and it's hard not to just be angry. This was a bogus story he had facilitated, yet he’s presenting it to the CIA as a discovery by courageous people who are coming forward at “some personal risk” and “under threat by Russian Intelligence Services.” The implication is that this information is so sensitive, they’re risking their very lives. What they (including him) should be risking for what they did is a long time behind bars.

Sussmann apparently couldn't even keep his stories straight. He spoke with another CIA employee in January, who also wrote a memo: “Sussmann said that he represents a CLIENT who does not want to be known, but who had some interesting information about the presence and activity of a unique Russian-made phone around President Trump.” (Of course, that story was bogus as well.)

In a section of that memo about “the client,” it seems to be describing Rodney Joffe: “Sussmann would not provide client’s identity and was not sure if he would reveal himself...the client is an engineer with a number of patents, and is most likely a contractor [as] Sussmann claimed the client had very sensitive access to various projects.”

“Sussmann also said that the client is a Republican,” according to the memo. What an odd thing to say. Perhaps another lie? If Joffe is a Republican, he’s a Republican the way Liz Cheney is a Republican.

“...[Sussmann] claimed his client did not want to provide this to the FBI, as he knows that the FBI did not have resources to deal with these issues, or perhaps since Sussmann is openly a Democrat and openly told [redacted] that he does lots of work with DNC, did not trust the FBI.”

“Sussmann said that...if there is no interest...[his client] would most likely go to New York Times.”

Sussmann’s lawyers are trying to keep the further evidence of his lies out of court, saying their client’s statement to the CIA “cannot possibly be part of the charged offense (concerning a single, different statement), and it was not made contemporaneously with the charged crime.” As I like to remind my readers, I am not an attorney, but it seems that Sussmann has lied so much, he could just be charged with those other lies, too. Bring on all the evidence!

His lawyers also point out that what he told the CIA wasn’t to help Hillary become President, because “the election was long since over.” You bet it was over –- by then, Sussmann was trying to unseat a SITTING President.

If you care to read their filing, you’ll see how desperately they’re trying to keep this evidence of Sussmann’s additional lying out of the courtroom.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21615495-sussman-filing

The CIA later found that Sussmann’s story about the Trump-Russia connection was “not technically plausible” and...(wouldn't this be criminal?)...“user-created.” Of course, special counsel Robert Mueller never found “illegal or criminal coordination” with Russia, either.

Durham’s filing also reveals he’s seeking immunity for someone who worked at Fusion GPS, identity not given. Another witness, “Researcher – 2,” who is David Dagon of Georgia Tech, was granted immunity even before Sussmann was indicted. Durham said he’d immunized “Researcher – 2” because five others involved in the plot had invoked their Fifth Amendment rights.

Here's a helpful analysis from Nick Arama at RedState.com. Highly recommended...

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/04/16/latest-durham-filing-shows-the-net-is-tightening-people-are-flipping-n551196

Sussmann’s attorneys are seeking immunity for Joffe, but Durham’s filing reveals he’s a subject of the investigation and “played a critical leadership role in assembling and submitting the allegations at issue,” so, no immunity for him. The defense is also trying to keep the Steele “dossier” out, but Durham said that evidence is “highly probative” because it establishes Sussmann “represented and worked for the Clinton campaign with its broader opposition research efforts.”

"The fact that FBI headquarters received on the same date both sets of information involving the same political campaign (Clinton campaign), the same law firm [Perkins Coie], and the same investigative firm [Fusion GPS] makes Steele's involvement in these matters relevant." You bet it does.

Mike Huckabee

One of the few things you can count on in this ever-changing world is that Democrats will never admit that their policies don’t work. Whenever they get into power, mess things up, and their poll ratings plummet (with the steepness of the drop always mysteriously corresponding to the amount of power they wield), it’s always because there’s a problem with their “messaging.” The poor dumb rubes just haven’t heard how great things are going, really. And media bias against Democrats is always such an insurmountable problem for them.

Seven years ago, I wrote the book “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy” to warn liberal elites how out of touch with most Americans they were, and they still haven’t figured it out. But then, why would they listen to me when they could take their cues from AOC and Joy Reid?

With the Dems’ approval ratings now dropping below those of eczema and British cuisine, the Hill newspaper asked them what’s the problem, and as always, it’s that pesky messaging! Americans seem to be in such a grumpy mood, they just don’t appreciate all the great accomplishments of the Biden White House. I’m linking to this because it’s such a perfect example of how they don’t just live in an echo chamber, but as Kurt Schlichter put it, an “echo vault, totally impenetrable from the outside and, at the same time, totally inescapable.”

https://thehill.com/news/administration/3265878-democrats-blame-messaging-for-their-political-problems/

Being a poor, ignorant peasant, you might not be able to name those copious Biden accomplishments, so the Dems listed a few: “…the coronavirus relief bill passed in March, a bipartisan infrastructure bill and the recent confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson, who will be the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. They also highlight an economy that continues to create jobs, and the improving state of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Wow, where to start? Well, the massive deficit spending bills are a major contributor to the current record-breaking inflation, and Democrats want more of those. Yes, wages are rising, but inflation is outpacing the rise, so workers are actually falling behind on pay and going into credit card debt. As I’ve mentioned many times before, we’re not dumb enough to believe that letting people return to their old jobs that the government shut down is “creating jobs.” Besides, Americans voting with their moving vans know that the real job creation is in red states where Governors are doing the opposite of what Biden wants, sometimes in defiance of his orders and lawsuits.

COVID-19 is going away because of vaccines developed under Trump and Omicron exploding the level of natural immunity (something the Democrats spent over a year denying exists.) The Brown confirmation is very exciting to people who care about nothing but race and gender (even though she can’t define what a “woman” is), but I think most Americans don’t care what color or sex a judge is, they just want one who doesn’t go easy on repeat criminals, particularly pedophiles.

There is only one honest sentence in this entire article, and it comes from an unnamed Democratic strategist: “We’ve done a f—ing horrible job and sometimes I think we deserve to lose big in November.”

But naturally, he meant a horrible job of “messaging,” and telling the public how great a job they’ve really been doing. I suggest they put modesty aside and just start telling the voters that they don’t appreciate how great they really have it. See how that works in November.

Mike Huckabee

Good morning! Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff! I hope you had a safe and joyous Easter. Sorry we have to get back to the news, but remember that the Good News of Easter lives on 365 days a year.

Today's newsletter includes:

• Durham has MORE evidence: Sussmann and CIA
• Russia-Ukraine War Update
• Two mass shootings reveal Democrats anti-life views
• And much more.

Sincerely,

Mike Huckabee

1. DAILY BIBLE VERSE

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Philippians 4:13

If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected].

2. Durham has MORE evidence: Sussmann and CIA

Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann is scheduled to go to trial on May 16.

SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES host Jason Chaffetz brought this up with Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs of the House Judiciary Committee for a brief discussion of Durham’s case. “I’m not sure that the Clinton campaign folks or the Democrat Party wants to see this go trial, and air their dirty laundry even further,” Biggs said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/durham-stripping-bare-incestuous-relationship-in-clinton-campaign-lawyer-case-chaffetz

That’s surely one reason why Sussmann’s attorneys, of the DNC-connected law firm Latham and Watkins, have been trying so hard to get evidence excluded from the trial as “immaterial” to the case. It makes their clients and friends look very, very bad.

Chaffetz ran out of time before they could discuss what the screen graphic said: “Durham: CIA concluded data from Clinton lawyer alleging Trump-Russia connection was “not technically possible.” So we’ll get to that today.

First, in case you missed our Sussmann update over the weekend, featuring the judge’s latest ruling on materiality (in favor of Durham), here’s a link to that:

https://www.mikehuckabee.com/latest-news?id=C53E24F8-12B8-40CD-8B56-00F5B14B56CF

The Epoch Times has an update on Durham’s latest filing. It’s a “premium” article, so here's the link but also a summary and comments below.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/former-clinton-campaign-lawyer-made-false-statements-to-second-government-agency-durham_

Durham had already included in his filings that Sussmann, on September 19, 2016, met with FBI general counsel James Baker and lied to him about why he was there. He was actually representing clients Hillary for America –- Durham has the billing records –- and tech executive Rodney Joffe but said he was not representing clients, instead coming forward on his own, out of his sense of duty. (Good grief; that outrageous whopper is getting harder and harder to stomach every day.) The FBI later determined his Alfa Bank story was not supported by the facts. But in a new filing on Friday, Durham says that several months later, on February 9, 2017 –- after Trump was President, I would note –- Sussmann brought another fake Trump-Russia story to the CIA and lied again.

Here's the document, a CIA memorandum from that meeting, that Durham wants admitted into evidence at trial.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21615492-cia-memorandum

From the memo, we learn that Sussmann had already “reached out” to the CIA general counsel, in mid-December, but had had no response though she’d said she’d be in touch “after some coordination with the FBI.” Not to be dissuaded –- he was a man on a mission –- he had reached out again.

“Mr. Sussmann advised that he was not representing a particular client and the information he was volunteering to us was not privileged,” the memo states. “His contacts wished to provide information to the USG [U.S. government] through Mr. Sussmann, preferring anonymity citing a potential threat from the Russian Intelligence Services.”

[Editorial aside: !!!!!!!]

“Mr. Sussmann said that he believed his contacts were acting in good faith and out of a sense of loyalty to the USG...He was up-front in disclosing that his law firm was active in supporting several democratic causes and office holders including both the DNC and then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, but that such work was unrelated to his reasons for contacting the CIA. He merely wanted to pass along information that he thought would be of interest to the USG and then let the CIA and FBI validate the information and take whatever actions they believed were necessary.”

Read on in the filing about how he presents the story itself, and it's hard not to just be angry. This was a bogus story he had facilitated, yet he’s presenting it to the CIA as a discovery by courageous people who are coming forward at “some personal risk” and “under threat by Russian Intelligence Services.” The implication is that this information is so sensitive, they’re risking their very lives. What they (including him) should be risking for what they did is a long time behind bars.

Sussmann apparently couldn't even keep his stories straight. He spoke with another CIA employee in January, who also wrote a memo: “Sussmann said that he represents a CLIENT who does not want to be known, but who had some interesting information about the presence and activity of a unique Russian-made phone around President Trump.” (Of course, that story was bogus as well.)

In a section of that memo about “the client,” it seems to be describing Rodney Joffe: “Sussmann would not provide client’s identity and was not sure if he would reveal himself...the client is an engineer with a number of patents, and is most likely a contractor [as] Sussmann claimed the client had very sensitive access to various projects.”

“Sussmann also said that the client is a Republican,” according to the memo. What an odd thing to say. Perhaps another lie? If Joffe is a Republican, he’s a Republican the way Liz Cheney is a Republican.

“...[Sussmann] claimed his client did not want to provide this to the FBI, as he knows that the FBI did not have resources to deal with these issues, or perhaps since Sussmann is openly a Democrat and openly told [redacted] that he does lots of work with DNC, did not trust the FBI.”

“Sussmann said that...if there is no interest...[his client] would most likely go to New York Times.”

Sussmann’s lawyers are trying to keep the further evidence of his lies out of court, saying their client’s statement to the CIA “cannot possibly be part of the charged offense (concerning a single, different statement), and it was not made contemporaneously with the charged crime.” As I like to remind my readers, I am not an attorney, but it seems that Sussmann has lied so much, he could just be charged with those other lies, too. Bring on all the evidence!

His lawyers also point out that what he told the CIA wasn’t to help Hillary become President, because “the election was long since over.” You bet it was over –- by then, Sussmann was trying to unseat a SITTING President.

If you care to read their filing, you’ll see how desperately they’re trying to keep this evidence of Sussmann’s additional lying out of the courtroom.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21615495-sussman-filing

The CIA later found that Sussmann’s story about the Trump-Russia connection was “not technically plausible” and...(wouldn't this be criminal?)...“user-created.” Of course, special counsel Robert Mueller never found “illegal or criminal coordination” with Russia, either.

Durham’s filing also reveals he’s seeking immunity for someone who worked at Fusion GPS, identity not given. Another witness, “Researcher – 2,” who is David Dagon of Georgia Tech, was granted immunity even before Sussmann was indicted. Durham said he’d immunized “Researcher – 2” because five others involved in the plot had invoked their Fifth Amendment rights.

Here's a helpful analysis from Nick Arama at RedState.com. Highly recommended...

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/04/16/latest-durham-filing-shows-the-net-is-tightening-people-are-flipping-n551196

Sussmann’s attorneys are seeking immunity for Joffe, but Durham’s filing reveals he’s a subject of the investigation and “played a critical leadership role in assembling and submitting the allegations at issue,” so, no immunity for him. The defense is also trying to keep the Steele “dossier” out, but Durham said that evidence is “highly probative” because it establishes Sussmann “represented and worked for the Clinton campaign with its broader opposition research efforts.”

"The fact that FBI headquarters received on the same date both sets of information involving the same political campaign (Clinton campaign), the same law firm [Perkins Coie], and the same investigative firm [Fusion GPS] makes Steele's involvement in these matters relevant." You bet it does.

3. Russia-Ukraine War Update

Here is today’s link to the Fox News continuous feed of Russia-Ukraine bulletins.

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ukraine-russia-updates-04-18-2022

Latest developments: The pointless violence drags on, with Russia firing several missiles at the city of Lviv. The missiles hit three warehouses and a car tire service center (strategic targets all), and killed seven people and injured 11 others. Ukraine’s military has liberated several towns near the city of Kharkiv. Russia surrounded Mariupol and gave Ukrainians there a deadline to surrender, they refused, and it’s since passed.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told CBS’ “Face the Nation,” “The situation in Mariupol is both dire militarily and heartbreaking. The city doesn’t exist anymore. The remainder of the Ukrainian army and large group of civilians are basically encircled by the Russian forces.”

And Russia’s former foreign minister said he believes that despite his nuclear threats, Putin is “barking” with “no way to bite.” He believes Putin would use nuclear weapons only in very specific circumstances, such as if Russia faced an existential threat, like NATO troops coming to Moscow, or if he were facing an "overwhelming military defeat" in Donbas. But he said the problem in figuring out what Putin would do is that he’s not making rational decisions because he’s operating in a fictional universe, but it’s not clear just how much of the “universe of fiction” the Kremlin puts out that Putin actually believes.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/foreign-minister-putin-nuclear-weapons-existential-threat

4. Two mass shootings reveal Democrats anti-life views

By Mike Huckabee

Over the weekend, South Carolina was the site of two mass shootings, one in a mall and the other in a restaurant. A total of at least 18 people suffered gunshot wounds, although thank God, there were no reported fatalities.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/17/nine-injured-at-south-carolina-restaurant-shooting/

Incredibly, one of the suspected mall shooters was released by a judge on $25,000 bail and allowed to wear an ankle monitor so he could go to work! I can’t imagine any of his co-workers showing up today.

https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2022/04/18/judge-sets-25k-bail-for-south-carolina-mall-shooting-suspect-and-lets-him-go-back-to-work-n551746

This type of blasé attitude about violence and crime leads me to ask an uncomfortable question.

We know that there is no longer any place in the Democratic Party for someone who is pro-life. The radical abortion wing drives out anyone who dares to question the current push to allow unfettered abortions up to and even beyond birth (that used to be called “infanticide.”) Never mind that only 13% of Americans think abortion should be allowed in the third trimester. Blue state leaders seem to be competing to see who can make it easier to kill babies in the womb, or even recently out of it, with Colorado currently grabbing the lead in that grisly race.

https://www.westernjournal.com/co-gov-marks-christs-resurrection-death-giving-death-sentence-babies-across-state/

My question, however, is not whether any Party leaders are pro-life, but whether they’ve actually gone so far as to become the pro-death party? If you think that’s outrageous, ask yourself: how many people have died because Democrats came to power, and they don’t seem to care about anything other than how it might affect their polling?

On the international side, we have the soldiers who died in a terrorist attack during Biden’s botched Afghanistan pullout, and all our Afghan allies who were left behind at the mercy of the Taliban (and no, I don’t believe that would have happened if Trump were still in office.) Add in all the Ukrainians who have been killed in the devastating invasion that I don’t believe Putin would have launched if Trump were still in office (you’ll notice he waited until after Trump left and Biden signaled his weakness and fecklessness in Afghanistan.)

But those are hypotheticals. Let’s look at how many people have been killed or injured as a direct result of Democrat policies right here in the US. Like Biden’s open border that’s allowed in repeat criminals, drug gangs and huge amounts of deadly drugs like fentanyl. Not to mention terrorists.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/border-patrol-people-terrorist-database-southern-border-2021-cbp-data

Consider how many illegal aliens with violent criminal records have been let in and shielded from deportation. Look at the skyrocketing crime and murder rates that coincidentally happen to all be in blue cities with “progressive” DA’s and city leaders, who have defunded the police and refuse to keep criminals in jail.

They have no rational justification for these deliberately deadly policies, only fuzzy euphemisms to try to cover up the bloodstains. They release career criminals to prey on the public again and again and call it “bail reform,” which is like calling partial birth abortion “reproductive justice” (which they also do.)

Even some Democrats are starting to catch on to the deadly consequences of “progressive” policies. New York City Mayor Eric Adams noted that while everyone was talking about the subway shooter, they ignored over a dozen incidents of gun violence just between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.

https://www.westernjournal.com/powerful-mayor-turns-blm-thought-black-lives-mattered/

Adams said, “Where are all those who stated black lives matter? Then go do an analysis of who was killed or shot last night. I was up all night speaking to my commanders in the Bronx and Brooklyn. The victims were black. Many of the shooters were black. Why are 16, 17, 18-year-olds out on our streets armed with guns at 12:00 or 1:00 a.m.? If black lives matter, then the thousands of people I saw on the street when [George] Floyd was murdered should be on the streets right now stating that the lives of these black children that are dying every night matter. We can’t be hypocrites.”

Oh but some people can be. When Adams called for fighting the violence by bringing back a plainclothes officer unit that his predecessor DeBlasio disbanded, BLM co-Founder Hawk Newsome raged that they would “take to the streets”: “There will be riots. There will be fire, and there will be bloodshed because we believe in defending our people.”

So he’s threatening riots, arson and bloodshed to protect black people from…not being shot? If that’s not a “pro-death” position, what is?

Kevin Downey Jr. at PJ Media made a related observation that the left’s tactic of dividing Americans by telling some groups that they’re helpless victims of other groups who hate and oppress them has become the driving force behind a number of horrific crimes of rage, from the subway shooting to the guy who ran over 62 people in a parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/kevindowneyjr/2022/04/15/blinded-me-with-violence-how-the-left-fosters-hate-crime-then-plays-the-victim-n1590085

As Downey puts it, they’re creating an atmosphere that fosters hate crimes, then playing the victim when the people who listen to them commit one. That's using death to gain political advantage. And it's absolutely sickening.

5. Income Tax Deadline Day

By Mike Huckabee

Reminder: Today is Income Tax deadline day, bumped from April 15th because of a local DC holiday. I hope you got all your forms filled out in time and won’t be sweating over them today (or tonight.)

Just FYI: The American Action Forum estimates that this year, complying with all the rules and regulations involved in filing income taxes will cost businesses and individuals 6.5 billion hours and a record $210 billion. That's not the taxes, just the compliance costs!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/tax-preparation-costs-nation-6-5-billion-hours-210-billion

Once November passes, and (I hope) the voters send record numbers of Republicans to Congress, remember those numbers and quote them when you tell your new Congress members to scrap this insane, burdensome, economy-crippling, corruption-enabling tax system, and replace it with one that you can fill out on a postcard:

https://fairtax.org/

6. Absurd idea

Once again proving that George Orwell perfectly predicted today’s world, here’s another example of his observation that there are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them:

https://redstate.com/alexparker/2022/04/17/yale-psychiatrist-calls-verbal-assault-just-as-detrimental-as-physical-violence-n551754

In an article titled, “Should Will Smith’s Slap Be Condemned More Harshly Than Chris Rock’s Words?,” Yale psychologist Dr. Amanda Calhoun argues that words “can be just as detrimental as physical violence.” Claiming that words may lead to depression and even suicide, she writes, “Should a physical assault always be judged more harshly than a verbal assault, no matter the context? I don’t think so.”

This is part of a concerted effort by leftist elites to convince us that freedom of speech is dangerous, so we need “experts” to “moderate” what we say. We might say something that’s “dangerous” or worse, “wrong,” in that it challenges their opinion, which they’ve defined as objective truth. It’s funny that their arguments against free speech are actually the greatest arguments in favor of it.

As for whether words hurt as badly as physical violence, maybe we should ask Chris Rock which hurt worse: Will Smith yelling at him, or Will Smith slapping him across the face. I notice that nobody who pushes this nonsense ever says, “Wait, don’t call me an idiot! Punch me in the face instead. That would hurt less.”

7. Give up the New York Times

True to form, on Good Friday, the New York Times ran an editorial calling on people to “Give up God.” My suggestion would be to give up the New York Times. But I’ll also link you to an excellent response to this latest attack on God from the newspaper of broken record.

https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2022/04/18/from-times-is-god-dead-in-1966-to-the-new-york-times-call-to-give-up-god-today-n2605986

Mike Huckabee

President Biden announced that he will extend the moratorium on paying student loans again--this time until August. That means if you have a student loan, you don’t have to make any payments until August. Payments have already been suspended for the past 2 years due to Covid, but this has to be one of the most brazen political payoffs ever attempted and it’s one that insults the intelligence of the American voters, even the ones who went out and borrowed $150,000 for an education that will land them a job that pays $40,000 a year.

Here's the head-scratcher: Biden and all his team tell us every day what a great job he’s done with the economy. We are told our economy is in great shape and has recovered swimmingly well. But it sure doesn’t feel that way to families buying gasoline or groceries, much less trying to buy a car or clothing. But if the economy is doing as great as Joe Biden says, then there is no need to extend the moratorium. Somebody is selling us a Whopper by either saying the economy is going great when it isn’t or by telling us that the economy is so bad we have to let people off the hook for the loans they took out.

But Democrats actually want to do more than suspend the payments—they want all student loans to be wiped out. That would cost you the taxpayer $1.7 TRILLION dollars, but heck, it might buy off some very gullible people who would vote for Democrats for giving them free money. I say that if you’re going to wipe out student loans, why stop there? Why not wipe out home loans, car loans, home improvement loans, and credit card debt. And for those of us who paid off our debts? Clearly we are the suckers who would now get to pay off the debts of the people who didn’t pay theirs.

This isn’t about “caring” or being “compassionate.” If the government wants to allow people to restructure the terms or interest rate, that’s just fine. But to arbitrarily erase a loan for people who aren’t paying what THEY agreed to is just plain nuts.

I feel for young people who took out huge loans for an overpriced education instead of carefully determining if the cost of that education was worth it. Maybe it would have been smarter to go to a community college. And will this apply only to college? That wouldn’t be fair for the people who paid to be trained as plumbers, electricians, welders, brick masons, or finish carpenters. Frankly we need a lot more skilled labor who can fix and build things than we need people who sit around Starbucks thinking deep thoughts and drinking 5 dollar coffee.

If you take out a loan—any kind of loan--it’s YOUR responsibility to pay it back. If you later encounter a catastrophic health issue or you serve in the military, then maybe there would be a way to help you out. But just to wipe out the debt of someone who as my mother used to say had a “Champagne appetite and a Coca-Cola pocketbook” and bought something they couldn’t afford to pay for whether it was a new truck, a big house, designer clothes, or an Ivy League education is hardly the way to teach responsibility.

And if the government decides to pay off the debts for those who failed to make payments, then will it send a check to us suckers who paid for our education as we went and worked our rear-ends off to do it?

If you honestly think erasing all the student loans in the country is a great idea, you probably are going to vote for Democrats anyway. But I’m sure you won’t mind if people who owe YOU money for something won’t be expected to actually pay you for it. Nah—if you run a business and your customers owe you, just wipe it out. Forgive their debts and obligations. And then come back and tell me how great it is to be a liberal Democrat!

Mike Huckabee

If you’re among the handful of people who were actually watching the Oscars before your friends called to say, “Turn it on, they’re slapping each other,” you heard the hosts mock what they call Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill (it actually doesn’t even mention the word “gay”) The three hosts all sang out, “Gay, gay, gay!” to show how you just can’t stop woke Hollywood movie stars from saying, “Gay.”

Unless you’re China, then you can stop them quite easily. In a staggering example of Hollywood hypocrisy, Variety reports that in the new Harry Potter offshoot movie, “Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore,” two lines referring to a gay relationship between the characters were cut out to appease the Chinese censors.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/04/13/hollywood-hypocrisy-we-say-gay-unless-china-doesnt-want-us-to-n549860

Warners released a statement reading, “As a studio, we’re committed to safeguarding the integrity of every film we release, and that extends to circumstances that necessitate making nuanced cuts in order to respond sensitively to a variety of in-market factors.”

Guy Benson of Townhall.com translated that showbiz baloney into plain English:

“Hollywood to Florida: ‘We say GAY!’

Hollywood to China: ‘We will certainly not say “gay” – thank you for your censorship notes, please give us money.’”

So they respect China's "culture" that denies gay people's existence, but not Florida's culture, where parents have the right to prevent their small children from being exposed to inappropriate sexual messages.

That’s Hollywood in 2022: they’ll boycott American states for protecting kids from porn or for not letting men into women’s bathrooms, but they’ll happily ignore Chinese genocide and censorship. Their respect for local customs and norms appears to depend entirely on the size of the profit margin.

Mike Huckabee

You’ve got to hand it to leftist California legislators: they are endlessly creative when it comes to thinking up schemes to try to legislate reality away. Here’s the latest, and it’s a doozy:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10709547/California-proposes-four-day-work-week-companies-500-employees-forcing-overtime.html

In a proposal that would affect 2600 companies and about one-fifth of the state’s workforce, they want to help people cope with leftist-caused inflation by reducing the standard work week from 40 to 32 hours and from five to four days for companies with over 500 employees. That way, anyone who works more than 32 hours would be paid time-and-a-half for overtime. Those working over 12 hours a day or over eight hours on a seventh day would get double pay. In effect, it would force employers to raise wages by an average of 25 percent. It also bars employers from lowering wages to compensate for the government-mandated raise.

There’s also a move by House Democrats to pass a similar national bill. The chair of the Progressive Caucus, far-left Rep. Pramila Jayapal, declared, “It is past time that we put people and communities over corporations and their profits — finally prioritizing the health, well-being, and basic human dignity of the working class rather than their employers' bottom line. The 32-hour work week would go a long way toward finally righting that balance.”

However, the California Chamber of Commerce calls the bill a “job killer.” California companies are already struggling to survive the inflation, supply chain crisis, outrageous gas prices, COVID restrictions and high taxes “progressives” have wrought, and they can’t afford a 25% hike in labor costs. They’ll have to lay off workers, go out of business or join the ongoing stampede to other states. Minimum wage workers who depend on working extra hours to make ends meet won’t be allowed to work more than 32 hours a week. It’s a perfect example of why President Reagan said the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

But I will give the “progressives” this: the workers they claim to be “helping” will be able to spend a lot more time with their families once they’re unemployed. However, if they really want to help both employers and employees, I suggest that “progressive” legislators cut their own work week to zero hours.

Mike Huckabee

Attorneys for Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann, indicted for lying to FBI General Counsel James Baker when he said he was acting on his own in offering the Alfa Bank story, have been trying like heck to get the charge dismissed. That’s their job, of course, and their law firm of Latham and Watkins has been working overtime representing a number of Hillary cronies, such as Perkins Coie and Marc Elias, caught up in her mess.

When their first argument didn’t work on presiding U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, they went for Take 2, this time maintaining that the statute against lying, Section 1001, applies only to lies that are “materially” false. They claim this alleged lie is immaterial to Durham’s case.

As Margot Cleveland at The Federalist explains, “Sussmann had attempted to avoid criminal prosecution by claiming that because the FBI would have investigated his “tip” no matter what he had told Baker about his clients (or lack of clients), the lie was immaterial.” The judge rejected that argument, made two weeks ago, on Wednesday.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/14/judge-denies-clinton-lawyer-micheal-sussmanns-motion-to-dismiss-charges-for-alleged-lies-to-the-fbi/

We would add that when he told them he was not representing clients, he was saying this regarding what his lawyers laughably called a “tip” but that was just a concoction, not a real tip. So the “tip” is actually a lie on top of a lie, though not part of the charge Special Counsel John Durham has chosen to pursue. Durham has Perkins Coie billing records to show that when Sussmann met with the FBI, he was indeed representing Hillary and also Rodney Joffe, who had organized the creation of the Alfa Bank narrative. But we also know that the Alfa Bank story was a lie, too, told in service to Sussmann’s clients.

And why on earth would he tell the FBI he wasn’t representing clients if not to make his (fake) “tip” seem more investigation-worthy?

The court ruled it was impossible prior to trial to resolve the “hotly disputed” question of whether Sussmann’s lie about not representing clients “was in fact capable of influencing either the commencement or the later conduct of the FBI’s investigation.” Judge Cooper, an Obama appointee, wrote that “the battle lines thus are drawn...”

On the other hand, that still doesn’t mean the case will get before a jury. Before he can determine the materiality of the lie, the judge said, the prosecution has to present their evidence. Once that has been done, the judge could possibly decide that Sussmann’s lie was “so peripheral or unimportant” to the agency’s function that he’s going to dismiss.

Cleveland explains that the judge could even toss the case after it’s been presented before the jury and they’ve found Sussmann guilty. He could rule on materiality even then, though she finds that highly unlikely.

As I often remind my readers, I am not a lawyer, but Sussmann’s lie about coming forward out of “duty,” not representing any client, is so central to what he was trying to accomplish that dismissing the charge would be a travesty. If it turns out this judge doesn’t have an immediate grasp of the obvious, we can only hope that Durham has the right words to make that argument.

But Cleveland seems assured that he has them for his presentation of the evidence. Durham has said he is prepared to show that the FBI could have been influenced NOT to open a full investigation had they known Sussmann “was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign.” If they’d known that, they might have chosen just to dip a toe rather than jump in, perhaps doing only an assessment or preliminary investigation. They might even have delayed it until after the election, and that would have defeated Sussmann’s purpose in going there in the first place. It had to be started right away --- before the election.

As Law & Crime reports: “Sussmann wanted the inquiry focused ‘only’ on ‘the FBI’s decision to commence an investigation’ based on the information he provided. That, Judge Cooper rationed, was a myopic view of the law --- one ‘based on an overly narrow conception of the applicable standard.’”

Their analysis quotes at length from Judge Cooper’s six-page opinion.

https://lawandcrime.com/russia-investigation/federal-judge-refuses-to-dismiss-durham-probe-case-against-michael-sussmann-says-he-cannot-resolve-this-standoff-prior-to-trial/

Durham says he has testimony from a number of government witnesses that “understanding the origins” of what Sussmann was bringing them “is relevant to the FBI in multiple ways, including to assess the reliability and motivations of its sources.” How true; it seems to me that any thinking person would understand right away what the motivation was, and that this would have huge bearing on the perceived reliability.

Of course (and Cleveland makes the point), the Crossfire Hurricane team might not have cared one bit where the information came from, considering they latched onto Steele’s “dossier” with both hands even though they knew he was working to elect Hillary. But that says more –- and it’s not flattering –- about those particular FBI agents than it does about materiality of Sussmann’s lie. The question isn’t whether or not a specific agent –- or even the entire Crossfire Hurricane team –- would be influenced, but whether the lie itself, objectively speaking, is CAPABLE of influencing. Durham says he can show that this one is.

So the courtroom testimony by Durham’s witnesses could put the Crossfire Hurricane team in a really bad light, as if we didn’t already know how bad they were, eagerly grasping at anything they could use to damage Trump, even material that was unverified or outright conjecture. They even falsified a document to help get a warrant to spy on his campaign. And in defending Sussmann, his attorneys will likely make the argument that this FBI team didn’t care if he represented Hillary or not. That’s not a good look.

It doesn’t mean Durham will get Sussmann convicted. But according to Cleveland, if the jury does say he’s guilty, Durham will have presented enough evidence to sustain that conviction.

If you’d like a refresher on the case, the New York Post has an updated one.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/13/judge-wont-drop-durham-case-against-clinton-lawyer-sussmann/

Finally, in case you didn't see it, Cleveland has another piece from a few days ago in which she shows how Hillary’s chums at the Brookings Institution, now exposed for its "dossier" connections, have been defending Sussmann in print. Cleveland also offers possible scenarios surrounding the surprise appearance of that text message from Sussmann to Baker –- the one re-stating IN WRITING the lie that Sussmann wasn’t representing any clients. “The mysterious case of the appearing text will have to wait for another day,” she writes. But she notes that with the text's emergence, Durham has ample evidence that Sussmann did indeed tell that lie.

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee

President Biden made a speech in Iowa Tuesday, and the best thing you could say about it is that the bird poop that appeared to land on his lapel was probably just corn.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/04/12/bird-appears-to-poop-on-biden-in-iowa-and-that-was-the-high-point-n549416

Nevertheless, it did give us this hilarious headline from Matt Margolis at PJ Media: “Patriotic Bird Poops on Biden; Speaks for Entire Nation.”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/04/12/watch-patriotic-bird-poops-on-biden-speaks-for-entire-nation-n1589208

As for everything else he said, from blaming 70% of our rampant inflation (a four-decade high 8.5% in March) on Vladimir Putin to his plan to lower gas prices, it was all 100% certified pigeon droppings.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/04/12/bird-appears-to-poop-on-biden-in-iowa-and-that-was-the-high-point-n549416

Not even one of the most prominent Democrat Senators is buying the White House’s fable that prices have been rising for over a year because Putin invaded Ukraine six weeks ago.

https://www.westernjournal.com/joe-manchin-torches-bidens-putin-price-hike-inflation-excuse-scathing-statement/

But Biden outdid himself with his announcement that he plans to ease high gas prices by letting 15% ethanol gas be sold from June to September, when it’s normally banned. There are so many crazy things in that plan that it’s hard to list them all. First, the real reason gas prices are so high is that Biden started from day one in office waging war on America’s domestic oil and gas industries, all in the name of fighting climate change. He exhibited the usual leftist logical fallacy of attacking a necessary commodity without having a feasible alternative.

Now, he proposes to lower those prices not by taking his boot off the neck of oil and gas producers, but by selling gas with higher amounts of ethanol, a corn-based alcohol. But that’s normally banned in summer under the Clean Air Act because it’s more volatile in hot weather and is believed to create more ozone and smog. (When Trump tried to make it available year-‘round, environmentalists successfully sued to block it.)

It also gets lower mileage, so you have to burn more of it to go the same distance, not only requiring the burning of more fuel, but negating any cost savings for drivers. In addition, many believe it damages your car’s engine. Plus, only about 2300 out of America’s 150,000 gas stations even have pumps for it. And even if you do find it and use it, the price is only about 10 cents a gallon lower.

Finally, at a time of looming food shortages, Biden proposes to use even more of our corn crop as a bad replacement for the gas he could produce simply by letting the oil and gas industry produce gas! The director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment said, “Turning more food into fuel at a time of looming global food shortages is as reprehensible as it is stupid.”

https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/12/joe-biden-ethanol-gasoline-inflation-russia/

So maybe a bird didn’t poop on Biden. But if it did, it would be the best review this speech got.

Mike Huckabee

Here’s how desperate Democrats are to deflect away their terrible agenda: They actually claimed that it’s really Republicans who are enabling pedophiles.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/athena-thorne/2022/04/09/lol-leftists-try-fail-to-paint-republicans-as-the-real-pedophiles-n1588423

Now, this is pretty stupid, so follow me closely: The Tennessee GOP proposed a bill defining common law marriage as being between “one man” and “one woman.” Since it didn’t include a minimum age, some Democrats immediately went the “Don’t Say Guy” route, slapped a false and misleading name on it (the “Marry Little Kids” bill!), and claimed it would legalize child marriage.

Of course, everyone other than Democrats and our newest Supreme Court Justice knows that “woman” means “adult human female” and “man” means “adult human male.” But the sponsors went ahead and added an 18-year-old minimum age, to make it crystal clear to those who are a bit slow.

On the other hand, if you’d like to see what it looks like when people with a political agenda aggressively push sexualizing small children, let me introduce you (and I’m sorry) to “The “GayBC’s.” It’s a book that allegedly teaches kindergarteners how to read by telling them that, say, B is for “bi,” C is for “coming out,” D is for “drag,” I is for “intersex,” N is for “nonbinary,” T is for “trans,” and so forth. And does “G” stand for “groomer”?

Roger Simon at Epoch Times reports that this was actually on iPads given out to kids by schools in Williamson County, Tennessee. That article is behind a paywall, but Instapundit has a lengthy excerpt.

https://instapundit.com/514166/

Oh, and if that isn’t disgusting enough, try this (and I warn you, you will be outraged that anyone thinks this is appropriate for children.)

https://thepostmillennial.com/theater-group-stages-naked-family-sex-show-to-teach-children-as-young-as-five-about-sex

By the way, if these people don’t like being called “groomers,” no matter how accurate it might be, then what else could possibly explain their relentless efforts to force inappropriate sexual materials onto small children? Amber Athey at the Spectator has a plausible theory. (Again, this is for subscribers. You can read it for free by registering, but Instapundit has an excerpt.)

https://instapundit.com/514291/

And as long as we’re on the subject of motivations for indefensible policies, here’s a look at why schools are trying to force “The 1619 Project” onto kids as a history book, even though it’s a big load of codswallop.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/schools-1619-project-curriculum-historical-errors

Laura Ainsworth, Staff writer

I waited a long time to comment on the big slap-down at the Academy Awards. For one thing, I like to have the last word, and maybe by waiting this long, I can actually have it. For another, there’s a lot to be said for the information-gathering phase preceding any expression of opinion –- it’s a phase many people skip –- and I processed a LOT of information. For example, I now know more about Will and Jada’s supposedly open marriage than anyone not getting paid $200 an hour should know, no matter how much Jada seemed to want to gab about it on video. Perhaps someday, if God is merciful, it will vanish from my brain cells to make room for something more worthwhile, which is to say just about anything else.

As far as I’m concerned, the Academy Awards have been ruined, but not by this literal slap in the face. I can’t remember exactly when it was during the past decade that I totally lost interest in what had always been a fun yearly tradition. But it’s no fun to watch an almost unimaginably successful but apparently broken man experiencing a public emotional meltdown, committing violence and bellowing the f-word from the audience on live TV. Now people will busily disagree about whether or not his punishment is appropriate, but it hardly matters. The Oscars were already wrecked.

The insular Hollywood community has always held little mystique for me. Celebrity means essentially nothing; some of the most talented people I know will never live in mansions or be household names. The sanctimonious and ill-informed politics of Hollywood have been extremely hard to take in recent years, but I think it was the “Oscars so white” brouhaha a few years back that finally did it, as the woke-left’s raging obsession with diversity got to be just too much. In a huge overcompensation, the race and gender quotas that are now built into Hollywood film projects and the awards that honor them have taken the focus away from fine artistic achievement in film. (And, sorry, but I don’t think you have to BE a (fill in the blank) to PLAY one. It’s called acting.) So goodbye, Oscars; I just don’t like what you’ve become. I feel like starting another #MeToo movement, as in, “Abandoning the Oscars? ME, TOO!”

I’m saying all this as a huge film buff, an actor myself and a member –- wait, the membership might have lapsed –- of the Dallas chapter of Women In Film. Deserving people should be recognized and rewarded for their talent and their work, period. These days, we’re lucky to see great films made by anyone. If they happen to check a few boxes, fine.

My personal taste runs to old movies, especially screwball comedies (not generally considered Oscar material) and black-and-white film noirs (ditto) featuring detectives in suits with fedoras, bad women with .22s in their rhinestone evening bags, and a total absence of cell phones, GPS and security cameras (which would make all these plots impossible). Most of my favorite movies were made before I was born, and the occasional modern remake typically pales in comparison to the original.

All of the above “backstory” is included as “exposition” for why I didn’t bother to tune in for the Academy Awards this year, I saw “the slap” later that night, on the news, and heard the criticism of Chris Rock for cracking a joke about the health condition (alopecia –- hair loss) suffered by Will Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith. How dare he!

I won’t get into the marital issues that Will Smith and his wife are dealing with, other than to say to Will, “Get thee to a counselor,” and I don’t mean the one he and Jada have been seeing together. For Will to have done the shocking thing he did, he must be going through a terrible time in his life. At the same time, that doesn’t excuse him.

What I really want to say relates more to Chris Rock and his joke. As someone who’s been writing humor for more years than I care to divulge, I know that Chris –- a truly great standup –- would have known better than to joke about someone’s medical condition, at the Academy Awards no less. (As blunt as Ricky Gervais can be, I don’t think even he would do that.) Chris surely just thought she’d had her head shaved, either for the style or for a role. I myself had assumed she was just rocking the latest fashion trend among black women.

That’s because a week or so earlier, I was at the hair salon and happened to pick up the March issue of ELLE. It had a feature called “Black Women Cutting Their Hair Short Is Not Just a Style Trend.” Yes, it’s a trend among stylish black women, the article says, but it’s also about freedom and confidence. And right up there at the top left is a picture of Jada Pinkett Smith, looking fabulous and very glam with her confident smile and shaved head.

https://www.elle.com/beauty/hair/a39264372/black-women-buzzcut-not-a-trend/

The article goes on to talk about how much effort black women have traditionally put into their “crowning glory,” with wigs, weaves, processing, etc., and many are deciding to let go of all that. “’Hair carries a lot of power and energy,’ says Carla Gentry, PINKETT SMITH’S LONGTIME STYLIST [emphasis mine]. ‘Sometimes cutting it off offers a new start, and you might need that.’”

The piece goes on to quote Pinkett Smith from last fall, saying that she “was ready for this kind of expression and release.” Once the hair was gone, she said, she felt “more connected” to herself. In other words, losing her hair was an empowering thing. A positive thing.

In fact, Will and Jada’s daughter Willow –- known, ironically, for her music video “Whip My Hair” –-had HER head shaved the same week, onstage, as part of another music video of the same song. “I’m always shaving my head at monumental times in my life,” she explains, “when things are really changing. And this is one of those moments.” So, it can even be a mother-daughter thing.

https://www.prevention.com/beauty/hair/a37065810/willow-smith-shaved-head-concert/

Way down in the ELLE article, it mentions that Jada had been dealing with alopecia, “a condition that can cause patchy hair loss.” It says she’d had a post on Instagram that “implied it had influenced her decision to adopt a crop.” I never saw that Instagram post, and I’ll bet Chris Rock didn’t, either. And if she did mention the alopecia any other times, I didn’t see those, and I’ll bet Chris Rock didn’t, either. I only saw the article about how great and empowering it was when black women cut off their hair.

Chris did nothing wrong and handled the incident and the aftermath with class. It was just a silly joke about somebody’s shaved head. And if shaving one’s head is so all-fired empowering for a woman, then that woman should smile graciously and accept the little joke, and the moment should pass. As for Jada, she seems to be doing all right.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/jada-pinkett-smith-stuns-gold-191400851.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

That’s about all I have. I hope this is the last word.

Mike Huckabee

Last night, Tucker Carlson on Fox News covered one of the most horrifying and least reported stories of the day: the Chinese government’s brutal COVID lockdown in Shanghai.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/04/11/tucker-carlson-exposes-the-shocking-hell-on-earth-in-shanghai-n549081

I have to warn you that this is genuinely disturbing: a report on people being locked into their homes with no way to get food, screaming in anguish that they’re starving, as government goons confiscate and slaughter their pets in the streets while dissenters are beaten and dragged off to “quarantine” centers. All the while, drones fly around, broadcasting the message that people must “resist their souls’ urge for freedom.” I’m sure that idea is very popular with a lot of people in Silicon Valley these days.

All of this is to enforce draconian lockdown policies that experience has proven do not work. Here’s the latest evidence: a study by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity compared the results of COVID policies in all 50 states. They assessed the effects on disease mortality, the states’ economies and children’s education.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-covid-debate-is-over-new-york-was-wrong-florida-was-right/ar-AAW7utg

The states that fared the best - Utah, Nebraska, Vermont, Montana, South Dakota and Florida – all have Republican Governors, as do 13 of the top 15 states. The media and some public health officials savaged them for refusing to impose stringent lockdowns and relying on their citizens to act responsibly. They were accused of setting the stage for mass deaths. But the study found no correlation between stringent restrictions on travel, employment or dining and lower death rates. And "states with strict lockdowns had virtually no better performance in COVID death rates than states that remained mostly open for business."

Meanwhile, the deep-blue states of New York, California, New Jersey and Illinois were ranked the worst on dealing with COVID, performing “poorly on every measure.” They had high death rates, high unemployment, significant GDP losses and their schools were shut down longer than almost all other states. A CUP spokesman said, "Shutting down their economies and schools was by far the biggest mistake Governors and state officials made during COVID, particularly in blue states."

And yet, every time we hear of a new variant, they fire up the talk about more lockdowns, restrictions and mandates. They claim to be on the side of science, yet they keep doing the same thing that doesn’t work and expecting a different result. That’s what a real scientist, Albert Einstein, called the definition of insanity.

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee

I grew up faithfully watching the Mickey Mouse Club on our black & white TV and singing along with the opening and closing songs. I knew all the Mouseketeers by name and probably had a crush on the girl Mouseketeers like Annette Funicello. On Sunday nights my family watched Disney’s Wonderful World of Color, although I never saw it in color. Color TV wouldn’t be something my family had until I was in high school. There wasn’t a Disney World in Florida back then—just a Disneyland in California, and I dreamed that someday I’d get to go there. The Disney brand was magic and Walt Disney was like everyone’s favorite uncle who was rich and had all the cool stuff. The Disney movies were dependably wholesome, family-friendly, and had a moral lesson embedded in the plot. Parents knew that their kids could see a Disney film and be entertained without being embarrassed or indoctrinated.

Just a few years back, we took our entire family to Disney World. Sure, it was mostly about taking the grandkids there and making sure they were indulged to the hilt.

But the wonderful family-friendly company that Walt Disney founded is gone, replaced by creepy corporate executives who have lost their minds and will likely lose a lot of their customers. They certainly have lost me.

Disney executives have outright lied about the Florida legislation that prohibits government schools from teaching sexual content to pre-schoolers and young elementary children. What person in his or her right mind want 4 year old children to be taught about homosexuality, transgenderism, and sexual expression? Disney execs repeated the utterly debunked lie that the bill was a “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Such language was nowhere in the bill. But it gets worse. In a conference call, other Disney leaders expressed the goal that in future Disney movies, at least half of all the characters in a film with be gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, queer, or something other than heterosexual.

And theme parks will be forbidden to say “hello boys and girls” and instead will be required to say “welcome dreamers and friends.” And no more will little girls be called princess when they show up in a gown. I guess boys could be a princess under the new perverted Disney code. Who knows?

This is so outrageous it’s hard to believe that the Disney company has become such a purveyor of soft-porn and woke-ism so that instead of entertaining children with fantasy and magic, Disney’s new model is sexual fantasy, outright betrayal and rejection of traditional values of marriage and gender, and instead of moral neutrality, Disney has opted for immoral advocacy.

Will their remake of Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs be called The Nymphomaniac and the 7 Male Prostitutes? Will Lady and the Tramp be re-named “The Lesbian and the Housing Challenged Non-gendered Animal?” Will Beauty and the Beast be renamed “The Bi-Sexual and the Child Predator?” And Swiss Family Robinson will now be about a dysfunctional family that becomes homeless and lives in a local park after wrecking their VW hippie van.

I simply refuse to believe that this dishonesty and insanity from Disney represents what American parents and grandparents want to purchase for their children. But the only way to push back against this filth is to find other products and places when you purchase entertainment for your family.

This is no longer about party politics. A clear majority of Florida Democrats support the law prohibiting schools from indoctrinating 4 and 5 year old children about various sexual agendas that are probably NOT the agendas of parents. I guess the small number of people supporting the perverted version of a public school will next want to trade in yellow school buses for white, windowless utility vans typically called “kidnapper vans” since that is pretty much the direction Disney is taking with your children.

I am old enough to remember when parents would say, “Sure, you can watch that movie. It’s a Disney movie so it will be safe.” Not anymore! This ain’t kid’s stuff. And I for one don’t want to enrich the people that have destroyed the Magic Kingdom and turned it into the Perverted Palace. Mickey shouldn’t be the face of Disney anymore. The Disney character most representative of the company would be GOOFY!

Mike Huckabee

Here is today’s link to Fox News’ continually-updated Russia-Ukraine news:

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ukraine-russia-live-updates-04-06-2022

To catch you up on some of the latest stories: President Biden approved an additional $100 million in military assistance to Ukraine as Secretary of State Anthony Blinken accused Russia of running a "deliberate campaign to kill, to torture, to rape, to commit atrocities." In what could be an important new development, China called the images that show a civilian massacre in Bucha “deeply disturbing” and called for an investigation; and India, which has also so far avoided criticizing Russia, said it unequivocally condemned the situation in Bucha. The Czech Republic sent a shipment of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine. President Zelenskyy accused Russia of “weaponizing hunger” by destroying food depots and mining farm fields.

This is an intriguing suggestion: The president of the European Council suggested that EU member nations offer asylum to Russian military deserters who don’t want to follow Putin’s orders to kill their Ukrainian cousins. Videos have surfaced on social media, reportedly of young Russian conscripts complaining that they’re poorly trained and badly-equipped and have been ordered into a suicidal mission they want no part of. If given half a chance, they might welcome the opportunity to drop their guns and run.

And this proves that war makes strange bedfellows: Hollywood liberal activist Sean Penn was a guest last night on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News. Penn admitted that he didn’t trust Hannity but thought that political differences should be put aside when facing something so terrible. He had been in Ukraine shooting a documentary about Zelenskyy when the invasion came, so he has some firsthand information and opinions to share. Penn predicts that “the Ukrainians will win this. The question is, at what cost?” You can see the interview here:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sean-penn-ukraine-zelenskyy-will-win

Pat Reeder, Staff writer

By “Huckabee” pop culture guru Pat Reeder (http://www.hollywoodhifi.com)

I really wish we could stop talking about this because I’m as sick of it as you are, but there have been a few more twists to the “Will Smith goes berserk at the Oscars” story. First, Smith resigned from the Academy. They were already meeting to discuss punishment, which could have included expulsion, so this could just be a “You can’t fire me, I quit!” move. Smith issued a statement acknowledging that his actions were “shocking, painful and inexcusable.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/mel-gibsons-fox-news-interview-comes-bizarre-end-asked-will-smith/

That might be easier to swallow if the other new twist wasn’t that footage of the Oscars from different vantage points appears to show that his wife Jada was laughing as he walked back from slapping Chris Rock, that co-host Amy Schumer later joked about it (“Did anything happen while I was away?”) and Smith guffawed at that, and he was later taped after his tearful, contrite acceptance speech dancing at an after-party and shaking his Oscar like a maraca. So he really did deserve that award for Best Actor. But considering Schumer also claims she’s taking a month off to recover from the trauma of the same incident that she was joking about before everyone in the theater realized how badly it came off to us normal people, Smith is only the tip of the Hollywood hypocrisy iceberg.

Also, last night, CBS aired the Grammy Awards from Las Vegas (full disclosure: my wife and fellow writer Laura Ainsworth is also a recording artist and Grammy voter: https://shop.bandwear.com/collections/laura-ainsworth-shop)

Maybe because of the tanking ratings, or the sense that Americans are fed up with woke celebrity hypocrites, the Grammy Awards were a little better this year than in recent years. The emphasis was more on music than politics, the virtue-signaling was turned down a bit, and the major political statement was a message from Ukrainian President Zelensky with a musical salute to Ukraine and an appeal to help the refugees.

They continued the unfortunate trend of putting performers on stage during the “In Memoriam” segment, often pushing the departed honorees so far into the background that you couldn’t see them (and I don’t understand why the drummer for the Foo Fighters got a special segment while Mike Nesmith got two seconds), but at least the Steven Sondheim songs were superbly performed. And while there were the usual classless moments and too much stuff that I personally might not technically consider to be “music,” there were also more examples than in recent years of actual musical talent and diverse styles, from the ‘70s funk of Silk Sonic to Lady Gaga’s salute to Tony Bennett to Jon Batiste’s New Orleans jazz-infused R&B.

Finally, congratulations to our friends who won and were nominated in the type of indie label categories that feature the best music being made today, so naturally, they’re shunted off to the untelevised afternoon ceremony.

Mike Huckabee

There’s a rule of thumb that wealth in a family tends to last three generations. The first generation is smart and hard-working (or creative, or ruthless) and builds a fortune. The second generation sees its parents working and struggling, and is taught how to build wealth, so they often increase the fortune. The third generation knows nothing but wealth and privilege, and grows up resentful of the success that made their lives so easy. That makes them the perfect target for leftists who persuade them to fund political agendas that previous, wiser generations wouldn’t have given a dime to.

That brings us to this story about Abigail Disney, great niece of Walt and granddaughter of his brother and business partner, Roy Disney. Heiress to a fortune reported to be over $100 million, Abigail Disney is also a prominent social justice activist, maker of leftwing documentaries and funding source for various causes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Disney)

Abigail Disney hit the news by launching a multi-part Twitter rant against journalist Christopher Rufo, who released the shocking leaked footage of a Disney Zoom meeting in which top executives openly boasted of their efforts to inject as much LGBTQ propaganda into children’s cartoons as possible. As you can read at this link…

https://www.westernjournal.com/disney-heiress-lashes-americans-take-woke-company/

Abigail Disney is quite incensed that what she characterizes as “rightwing” fascists dare to challenge the values pushed by Disney. She curiously seems to think that we’re the ones who are threatening people and calling folks names. She called on corporations to stop funding the “right wing” (And which big businesses are those? Twitter? Google? Microsoft? Apple? Disney?...) She claims that we are the “minority,” even though polls show a clear majority of Floridians, including Democrats, support barring schools from injecting sex and gender messages into kindergarten through third grade classes. She always gloated that corporations like Disney have the power to crush impertinent upstarts like Rufo, who dares to expose the truth about them. (Wait, I thought we were the ones who threatened people?...)

It’s valuable to read not because you learn anything from her, Heaven forbid, but because it gives you such a window into the utterly warped world view of someone who was born into so much money and privilege, and who lives in such a cast iron bubble of leftist ideology. It’s almost like reading the latest news from Bizarro World.

If you have a little time to kill and would enjoy watching someone reset this Twitter thread back to reality tweet by tweet, check out Brad Slager’s fisking of it at Redstate.com.

https://redstate.com/bradslager/2022/04/02/disney-heiress-weighs-in-on-the-new-florida-law-n544423

Incidentally, it’s a bit strange to see Abigail depicting Disney as the icon of virtue that we must all obey considering that as recently as 2020, she was blasting the company herself for allegedly giving their CEO obscene pay while underpaying park employees so badly that they were eating out of dumpsters. She said, "Disney has turned a pretty profit on the idea that families are a kind of magic, that love is important, that imaginations matter. That's why it turns your stomach a little bit when I tell you that Cinderella might be sleeping in her car." I actually agree with her: their CEO should be sleeping in his car. And the way he's running the company, he might be soon.

But then, I guess if Disney’s current ideas about indoctrinating our children with inappropriate sexual messages turn our stomachs, we’re not allowed to say so. If we wanted that kind of privilege, we should’ve picked our own parents more carefully and chosen richer ones.

Related: While Disney Corp is attacking Florida for not being woke enough, the company just announced an expansion of Disney Plus into a number of new areas, including Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Yemen. All them outlaw homosexuality by law, with punishments ranging from fines and imprisonment to chemical castration to the death penalty.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/disney-expanding-operations-to-10-anti-gay-countries-as-they-go-woke-in-the-us

Mike Huckabee

If Republicans return to power and don’t issue subpoenas and get to the bottom of what happened to bury the Biden laptop story before the 2020 election, they don’t deserve power.

That’s what I told Sean Hannity on FOX News Monday night, after he said he couldn’t think of a bigger “in-kind” campaign contribution the media could’ve made to Joe Biden. Republicans must show up and engage the other side so the American people can find out if the President of the United States is compromised.

As I’ve said, this isn’t about Hunter, but “the Big Guy.” If Hunter traded on his father’s powerful name to work deals with our country’s biggest adversaries, especially China, this truly is the biggest political scandal in America’s history. Perhaps the worst part, though, is the media’s role as accomplices, crying "Russian disinformation!" to hide the deeds of their political friends, at least for as long as this met the needs of those pulling the strings. I hate to say it, but what we see looks like something akin to the Corleone family.

We have to strip off layer after layer, like peeling an onion, till we expose the rotten center. And, yes, also like peeling an onion, it makes us want to cry.

On the bright side, the latest update from the New York Post suggests Durham’s grand jury is already exploring the “Big Guy” connection…

https://nypost.com/2022/04/04/hunter-biden-grand-jury-witness-was-asked-about-deal-with-chinese-firm-and-the-big-guy/

Greg Gutfeld targeted the Washington Post Monday night for offering a lame defense and semi-apology for the media’s failure to report the story. On Sunday, the unintentionally amusing WaPo Editorial Board actually asked, “Why is confirmation of a story that first surfaced in the fall of 2020 emerging only now?”

Why indeed, WaPo Editorial Board? As if you weren’t largely to blame for that yourselves, though you tried to point fingers away from yourselves and towards Twitter and Facebook. You said you were just trying to be “prudent,” so as to not be “the unwitting tools of a Russian influence campaign.” (Never mind that you were for years the eager tools of Hillary’s “Russia Hoax.”) We still get the distinct impression that you shared Twitter’s goal –- that if you’d had your way, that laptop story would’ve disappeared without a trace, as the White House surely wishes the laptop itself had.

Gutfeld put it more bluntly, “The press asking why the story is only emerging now –- that’s like O.J. Simpson asking what happened to his ex-wife Nicole, or Scott Peterson putting up missing person posters of his wife all around the neighborhood. Your hands were all over this.”

His coup de grace, Line Of The Day: “There was a disinformation campaign all right, but the culprits weren’t chugging vodka in Moscow; they were sipping lattes in Silicon Valley.”

At this writing, Monday’s “Gutfeld!” hasn’t yet been posted, but do check it out if you missed it, as both the monologue and the opening discussion are about the Biden scandal and media cover-up.

As for Hillary and the “Russia Hoax,” Michael Sussmann’s attorneys have tried again to get the charge dropped against their client. They’ve come up with a novel argument that plays off some circular logic. Here’s how the reasoning goes:

Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI about whether he was there on behalf of clients (Hillary and tech executive Rodney Joffe), telling them instead that he was just there to give them a “tip” (the fake Alfa Bank story) out of his patriotic duty. His attorneys told the judge that never before, at least to their knowledge, “has an individual provided a tip to the government and been prosecuted for making a false statement that’s ancillary to the tip itself.”

Reminder to Sussmann’s attorneys, and also to the presiding judge, Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper: Sussmann was not providing a “tip” to the government. That’s what he was lying about! On behalf of his clients, whom he was billing for the meeting, he PRETENDED it was a tip. We all know he was actually feeding the FBI a fake piece of evidence. So unless you’re doing a standup comedy routine, don’t use the lie that it was a tip in your argument to dismiss the charge of lying that it was a tip.

The Epoch Times has a good summary, but it’s a “premium” story. I’ll include the link, but we’ve covered the main points.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/lawyers-for-ex-clinton-campaign-lawyer-try-convincing-court-to-dismiss-charge-from-john-durham_4374988.html

Speaking of Sussmann and the argument for dismissal, legal analyst Margot Cleveland has a detailed new piece relating to that. Sussmann’s attorney --- from law firm Latham & Watkins, whose reach extends far in this scandal --- had another argument for dismissal: that the lie wasn’t “material,” and thus not a crime. So, why wasn’t it material? The attorney, Michael Bosworth, said no one at the FBI even asked Sussmann about the source of the Alfa Bank information. “Not once,” Bosworth said. “Ever.”

Cleveland recounts from the transcript the heated back-and-forth on this point between Boswell and prosecutor Andrew DeFilippis. Boswell was arguing that Sussmann’s (alleged) lie didn’t matter to the FBI, because if the FBI had cared at all about the source of the information he had brought them, they would have asked him about it.

Now, as I’ve said many times, my research team and I are not attorneys, but it occurred to us that the FBI DID straight-out ask if Sussmann had come representing clients, so that must have mattered, and that’s what he lied about. It sure seems material to us. Bosworth was probably thinking, “Hey, it’s worth a shot.”

Still, amazingly, we learn from this that the FBI never asked Sussmann anything like, “Who are these cyber experts you talked to? Can we talk to them? How’d they get this information?” Sure enough, Cleveland had the same take-away; namely, that the FBI’s failure to ask these questions “speaks not of the unimportance of the information, but of the incompetence (or political corruption) of the Crossfire Hurricane team.” They had the same lack of curiosity about the Steele “dossier” and didn’t care if they were relying on obviously suspect information if it fit their purpose.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/04/the-alfa-bank-hoax-is-looking-a-lot-like-crossfire-hurricane/

Finally, in an update to the FEC’s fining of Hillary For America and the DNC, Kash Patel, lead investigator for the House Intelligence Committee when it was chaired by Devin Nunes, says they’re paying their fines to bury the story.

Recall that the fines were for misreporting “oppo research” for the Steele “dossier” as “legal services” and funneling the money for the “dossier” through law firm Perkins Coie. As we’ve reported, they essentially pleaded “no contest” and are paying the fines, with Patel now saying it’s to avoid calling more attention to what they did.

Patel points out that “the Hillary Clinton campaign could’ve said, ‘We disagree with your finding. We’re going to court.’ What did the Hillary Clinton campaign do? ...They agreed to the finding of probable cause by the FEC, which means they’re basically agreeing that it happened. ...Like we’ve always said, ‘Follow the money.’”

He sees the FEC fines as “another step towards accountability,” which needs to come in the form of indictments.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/clinton-campaign-dnc-are-paying-fec-fine-in-an-effort-to-bury-story-kash-patel

Mike Huckabee

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has already voiced her intentions to vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court, as has Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin, so it’s now being treated as a certainty. Democrats are rushing forward with a vote today to advance her nomination out of the Judiciary Committee and hurry it to a floor vote.

But her confirmation process has actually made her appear less qualified than she seemed at first glance. Her record of going easy on pedophiles is disturbing enough. And the New York Post obtained transcripts of some of those rulings that are even more disturbing that we’ve been led to believe (warning: graphic details at the link.)

https://redstate.com/beccalower/2022/04/02/newly-released-transcripts-of-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-child-porn-cases-show-why-she-must-not-be-seated-on-scotus-n544681

Also, the Democrats have refused even to release other records on her. And Sen. Ted Cruz revealed that in the written questions he submitted to her, she claimed she was unable to state whether Americans have natural rights. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure the Founders listed our God-given rights in a PS to the Constitution called “The Bill of Rights.”

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/04/02/yikes-you-need-to-see-this-answer-from-ketanji-brown-jackson-n544428

I get that she was too afraid of the trans lobby to admit that she knows what a “woman” is, but who is she afraid of offending by admitting that she knows Americans are endowed by their Creator with certain natural rights? Personally, I don’t want someone who’s unclear on that concept sitting on the Supreme Court for life.

Republicans may not have the majority, but lest we forget, neither do the Democrats. They just have the Veep to break ties. There is still a way that the Republicans could stop this headlong rush to place someone on the SCOTUS who doesn’t know a woman from a natural right. Allan Stevo at American Greatness explains how, but it would require all the Republicans to stand together to protect America. Let’s hope that’s not too much to ask of some of them.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/04/03/republicans-can-stop-the-ketanji-brown-jackson-nomination/

Mike Huckabee

The firehose of news about Hunter Biden’s laptop is still on full blast. Mark Levin, on Sunday’s LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN, speculated that we might have a real-life “Manchurian Candidate” in the Oval Office. And he implicated the media –- the “Big Tech oligarchs” –- that covered up for the Bidens by censoring the Hunter laptop story before the 2020 election and afterwards, calling it “Russian disinformation.”

Levin pointedly mentioned Chris Wallace’s role in that. Recall that when Donald Trump tried to bring it up during a debate, Wallace refused to allow it. He also noted that The New York Times, now admitting the laptop really is Hunter’s, maintained as recently as September 2021 that it was (sigh) Russian disinformation.

This withholding of evidence absolutely was election interference.

Levin believes the NYT and also the Washington Post are writing about this now because they’ve been tipped off that prosecutors are moving fast. Much as they might like to, it’s hard for them to ignore developments like this, as reported in WaPo: “...The new documents –- which include a signed copy of a $1 million legal retainer, emails related to the wire transfers, and $3.8 million in consulting fees [from CEFC –- the CCP’s oil and gas conglomerate] that are confirmed in new bank records and agreements signed by Hunter Biden –- illustrate the ways in which his family profited from relationships built over Joe Biden’s decades in public service.”

There’s much more on the laptop tying Hunter to CEFC. As WaPo reported a few days ago, according to a contract signed in August 2017, Hunter would be paid a one-time retainer of $500,000 and would then receive a monthly stipend of $100,000, with his uncle James (Joe Biden’s brother) getting $65,000 a month.” Nice work if you can get it.

According to WaPo, the money started flowing “almost immediately, with the first incoming wire of $5 million arriving on August 8, 2017.” Documents on Hunter’s laptop to that effect were corroborated by identical bank statements [Sen. Chuck] Grassley’s office obtained from Cathay Bank for an account jointly held by Hunter Biden and CEFC executives...”

WaPo obtained a report from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the Treasury Department saying the transactions were flagged as potential money laundering, political corruption or other financial crimes. No wonder they’re thinking an indictment might be imminent.

There’s much more, and this is just the part about China, not Ukraine. (It includes that email verified by Hunter’s former partner Tony Bolulinski that specifies “10 [percent] held by H for the Big Guy.”) Of course, WaPo and the NYT have obviously tried to “help” the President by distancing him as much as possible from the activities of his brother and son. But, as Levin says, this laptop has “the names of individuals, it’s got dates on it, it’s got times on it, it’s got a thousand methods for confirming the authenticity of what’s on the laptop. Where are the media?” This information was known by them before the election, but the establishment media are only now talking about it. In contrast, the reporters at the New York Post, Miranda Devine in particular, deserve high praise for putting it all out there, raising the ire of the propagandists running social media.

Levin called for a federal special counsel, as opposed to the politicized DOJ led by Merrick Garland, to set up an office to look into all foreign dealings of the Biden family. There is solid evidence that President Biden lied multiple times in claiming not to know anything about Hunter’s business dealings and saying reports of wrongdoing had been “totally discredited.” “We need a Biden Crime Family Committee,” Levin said, “and we need one right now. We need to know what the hell’s going on. Communist China’s our biggest enemy, and they’re staring us down. It’s my contention we have a man in the Oval Office who is by all evidence corrupt --- bought off --- and we need it now.”

Ron Klain, Biden’s chief of staff, went on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to tell George Stefanopoulos the President is confident Hunter didn’t break the law. But to cover his bases, Klain said, “These are actions by Hunter and his brother. They’re private matters. And they certainly are something that no one at the White House is involved in.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-confident-son-hunter-biden-didnt-break-the-law-white-house-chief-of-staff_4379711.html

Bonchie at RedState.com explains how Klain made an inadvertent admission. Right after saying Joe was confident Hunter hadn’t broken the law, Klain said Joe had had no contact with the DOJ. So, if he had no knowledge of his son’s business and hadn’t talked to the attorney general, how would he know whether or not Hunter had broken the law? Answer: he wouldn’t. Biden’s lying in one statement or the other, or perhaps in both.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/04/03/white-house-response-to-hunter-biden-scandal-seems-to-make-an-inadvertent-admission-n544933

Similarly, the White House “pointed to” statements made in the fall of 2020 that Hunter and James Biden had committed no crimes but went on to dodge the question of whether or not the President might have had conversations about pardoning them.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/white-house-denies-hunter-biden-committed-any-crimes-and-dodges-on-pardon

We do know, however, that Biden HAS had conversations about prosecuting Trump, over January 6. And this story probably was leaked to put a bee in AG Garland’s bonnet. I thought the President wasn’t supposed to use his office to prosecute a political rival.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/04/02/report-joe-biden-openly-pusing-for-the-doj-to-prosecute-donald-trump-n544606

Kyle Becker reports that a revealing text between Hunter and his daughter Naomi from December of 2018 has been verified. Here’s what it says at the end: “I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years. It’s really hard. But don’t worry unlike Pop I won’t make you give me half your salary.”

Rudy Giuliani discussed this text two weeks before the election with Martha MacCallum on FOX News. He said that, yes, he could verify that it was legit. Back then, the media --- well, not Martha --- painted Giuliani as a dingbat, and he later turned out to be 100 percent correct about this. Read the transcript of their interview at the link.

https://beckernews.com/bombshell-hunter-biden-text-reveals-joe-biden-made-him-give-him-half-his-salary-for-over-30-years-44654/

Finally, John Solomon has a must-read piece in which he tells the story of a retired intelligence office, Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, who was approached by one of the intel agencies ahead of the 2020 election to try to help them acquire a copy of Hunter’s hard drive. “We don’t have a political dog in the fight,” they told Shaffer. “What our concern is, is that if there’s compromising information on that hard drive, this is before the election, the President could be compromised to the level of owing either China or Ukraine something.” Goodness, that sounds like a legitimate and very serious concern.

But according to Shaffer, in late October, the intel leadership abruptly said, “Stop, don’t touch it. We don’t want to know.”

Also, regarding the now-infamous letter signed by 51 former intel officials to say the laptop had “earmarks” of Russian disinformation, Shaffer said national security experts normally stay out of presidential politics, and that the signatories should be barred by law from holding an inside-government national security job ever again. Think that'll happen?

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/hldex-intel-officer-spy-agency-sought-hunter-biden